|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
As discussed, science says iridium does come from space and also that is is found deep in the earth. Precisely where flood water came from!
So water came from the core of the earth? Please document this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
None of the applications even deal with the inner earth, only the surface (100 km or whatever) . Indeed. But you accept the validity of the scientific method of deducing the constitution of the earth below its surface from analysing reflected seismology, even down to the 100km referred to in the article, yes ?Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9 |
So water came from the core of the earth? Well, and from out beyond where the stars are.....What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
So why should we ever assume patches of high concentrations of Iridium somewhere in the mantle or below when we have no reasons to base that assumption upon?
Why assume they were not there??Science has no reasons either way. We don't "assume they were not there." We have no evidence that they are there in such large concentrations. We have evidence of trace amounts from the Earth. Not the thousands of times larger concentrations we find in K-T boundary layer. And since iridium is not water soluble there is no demonstrable mechanism from your flud to concentrate those trace amounts to those even close to the levels found in the K-T layer.
I have reasons. The fact is it exists and had to come from somewhere. No. You have wishful thinking and fantasy. Besides we already know where that level of iridium came from.
This has the earmarks of the flood. No ear, no marks, no flud.
You have NO idea whatsoever even what a fountain of the deep was! Stop with the insane claims you saw stuff pushed out of them!! Sure we do. We see the things, and what they left over hundreds of millions of years, all over the planet. There are no others in evidence.
Maybe the water came from deeper than they think. As for space...the waters resided out beyond where the stars are that came to earth in the flood. This leaves a lot of room for the water picking up iridium!!! What happened to "Stop with the insane claims"? Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
This one is funny.
creation writes: Yeah, baby. All those platinum group metals. Next time you're gonna tell us that the 3 main lobes of the layered mafic Bushveld Igneous Complex were all poofed into existence as different sedimentary deposits in a magic fluddie. Why assume they were not there?? Science has no reasons either way. I have reasons. The fact is it exists and had to come from somewhere. It came right at the time of the great extinction. This has the earmarks of the flood. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Indeed. But you accept the validity of the scientific method of deducing the constitution of the earth below its surface from analysing reflected seismology, even down to the 100km referred to in the article, yes ?
Well, there's also a lot more than reflection seismology to solid earth geophysics. The field of geophysics is very much involved with the composition and properties of all parts of the earth including the core, solid and liquid. When we take into account all of the data, including magnetics, gravity measurement, global seismology and even (to some degree) some surface geology, there's quite a bit we can say about the internal structure of the earth. For instance, we know that iridium is the second most dense natural element on earth and it would logically partition into the core of the earth during early stages of planet formation along with iron (which is instrumental in forming our magnetic field) and other heavy elements. The trend of increasing iridium content with depth in the earth suggests much higher concentrations in the core also. However, we have no volcanism other than some isolated (not global) magmatic occurrences, that are probably not directly related to the core. This is what Pressie is telling us in an earlier post. Sure, there are iridium anomalies but they are nothing like the global K-Pg layer. Furthermore there is no association between geohydrothermal systems and iridium content on a global basis. After all, why would there be water in the core of the earth to transport iridium to the surface in the first place? With all that we know, an extraterrestrial source is by far the best explanation for the K-Pg layer. Of course, that makes no difference to our "alternate states" YECist. He would rather base his theory on what he does not know rather than what science has actually learned. In my opinion this is all some kind of negative science or sorcery that has become popular with the poorly educated. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
14174dm Member (Idle past 1109 days) Posts: 161 From: Cincinnati OH Joined:
|
If the iridium was deposited during the Flood then a couple of characteristics would be found.
First the iridium would be mixed throughout the layers of sediment deposited during the flood rather than single thin layer. Second the iridium would decrease with distance from fountains of the deep. We see neither of these characteristics so we don’t see evidence of the Flood in the iridium. Edited by 14174dm, : Clarity of point
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Sure we do. We see the things, and what they left over hundreds of millions of years, all over the planet. There are no others in evidence.
In my opinion, we cannot compare modern or even geological mid-ocean ridge vents with the purported 'fountains of the deep'. The only comparison is that they are underwater springs (I guess). Other than that, I don't see any comparison with a hydrothermal vent that would eject water and rocks all over the solar system.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
If the iridium was deposited during the Flood then a couple of characteristics would be found.
Exactly. The only caveat is that, even in the K-Pg layer, I understand that the iridium is finely divided in up to 4 very thin laminations in some locations. This is almost certainly due to reworking of a blanket of ash during several seasonal or storm events. Same thing happens with modern volcanic ash deposits. First the iridium would be mixed throughout the layers of sediment deposited during the flood rather than single thin layer. Second the iridium would decrease with distance from fountains of the deep. ABE: This latter fact is something that YECists will try to utilize against the impact hypothesis. Also, I keep in mind that there were a lot of things going on at about that time in geological history including impacts. The actual extinction 'event' may have a number of causes. Edited by edge, : No reason given. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
14174dm Member (Idle past 1109 days) Posts: 161 From: Cincinnati OH Joined:
|
You have NO idea whatsoever even what a fountain of the deep was! So what was a fountain of the deep? What is the evidence of one? Where in the world is an example? Why is the convential geology wrong for that site? I am thinking that a fountain of the deep would be a fissure of some depth (kilometers scale). A debris field radiating out with progressively finer material with distance. Fractures and sunken areas where vast amounts of water were removed. What kind of geologic formation would hold and release the water of the Flood? Creation scientists have had a century or more to answer thses questions. Please educate us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
In my opinion, we cannot compare modern or even geological mid-ocean ridge vents with the purported 'fountains of the deep'. Sure we can ... I think. For the purposes of gauging iridium concentrations from within the Earth I included any and all fissures, geysers, volcanoes from black smokers to the Deccan Traps and other large igneous provinces. That's the closest I could come to covering everything that might be construed or misconstrued as some fountain of the deep. The point I think I'm making to creation is that the Earth has spilled its guts out at us over many millions of years all around the planet and all we have ever seen from this stuff is small trace amounts of iridium far to sparse to compare with the concentrations found in the K-T layer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Sure we can ... I think.
As long as it's in the context of differences, fine. But for instance, your argument about a multiplicity of ages blowing up the FOD/flood relationship is countered by Faith's argument that "Well, everything happened in one year", so they're all the same age anyway. Hmmm, am I starting to think like a YEC??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
your argument about a multiplicity of ages blowing up the FOD/flood relationship It's not the multiplicity of ages as it is the fact that the stuff that came out, no matter where or when, all had small, if even detectable, levels of iridium.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
It's not the multiplicity of ages as it is the fact that the stuff that came out, no matter where or when, all had small, if even detectable, levels of iridium.
Details, details ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Details, details ... Now you are thinking like a YEC.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024