Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   YEC Geologic Column - Created with apparent age?
wehappyfew
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 82 (11048)
06-05-2002 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Tranquility Base
06-02-2002 10:53 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I'm more and more convinced that there was no creation with 'appearence of age'. The bedrock was created, the day 3 emergence of landfrom sea generated the Precambrian layering, the flood generated the Cambrian to Cretaceous and the glacial melting generated the Cenezoic
In an attempt to try to drag this thread back on topic, I would like to ask TB a few questions. We have other threads devoted to explaining the "mainstream" geology POV. I would say TB is making a valiant effort at beginning a sound layman's education in geology, but he still has a long way to go. Conversely, I would wager that he believes I am sorely lacking in understanding the YEC model he proposes (and he would probably be right). So I would like to ask a few questions to help rectify that:
1. I understand TB pegs the Flood deposits at Cambrian to Cretaceous, with Tertiary being glacially influenced. So question one is... why are all the glacial evidences confined to the very end of the Tertiary?
2. To construct a silly little strawman for me to practice on... If the Cenozoic represents the post-Flood era, and if we use the conventional epochs, and if we assume a linear compression of the 4500 year YEC post-Flood timeframe...
then does that mean the Paleocene ended in 1736 BC
the Eocene ended in 628 BC
the Oligocene ended in 409 AD
the Miocene ended in 1655 AD
the Pliocene ended in 1877 AD
and the Pliestocene ended last August 31, 2001 at 11:34 PM, at which time we began the Holocene???
Obviously not... there must be some sort of massive compression of geologic time early in the Cenozoic, which slowed exponentially, perhaps, until we became sophisticated enough to measure it, at which time it locked into the current laws of nature we know and love today.
Does that seem right, TB?
Assuming that is a reasonable statement of your model, TB, the final question is...
How did massive, hot igneous bodies - like the Deccan Flood basalts, and spreading mid-ocean crust, and the batholiths of the Sierra Nevadas, etc - cool in only a few hundred or a few dozen years (assuming the massive time compression)??
Are you requiring the physical constants and such to change by a factor of millions, and then settle down to today's values???
I suppose if you extrapolate the decay factor back into the Flood year, then you might get 500 million years of radioactive decay, batholith cooling, erosion, etc in the one year Flood, and then the preCambrian billions of years would take only a few days. Does this make sense? Does it make your "1000 year CreationWeek days" unneccessary?
I think this would be a good thread to discuss in detail the YEC model, and avoid muddying the others.
Thanks in advance for clearing this up for me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-02-2002 10:53 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-06-2002 10:50 PM wehappyfew has replied

  
wehappyfew
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 82 (11164)
06-07-2002 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Tranquility Base
06-06-2002 10:50 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]EDIT - the ice-ages happened only at the end of the tertiary? Let me do some reading or tell me more and I'll get back to you.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Check here... Paleocene climate
here... Early Eocene climate
and then here... Climate maps ...to see them all.
Even until the Miocene, climate was warmer than today.
[QUOTE][b]So your problem for us, the "massive, hot igneous bodies - like the Deccan Flood basalts, and spreading mid-ocean crust, and the batholiths of the Sierra Nevadas, etc"? First, I'll let you in on a secret. Creationists are often correct in assuming that such work has never really been done. Why? Not because mainstream scientists aren't any good but because why would you do such a study? You know you had millions of years! But maybe it is a problem for creationists. We should both check this one out. Simply stating it is not the same as referencing a study that shows the cooling couldn't happen. [/QUOTE]
[/b]
Maybe you'll let Joe Meert educate you on this one. He has a paper in the works on this subject... [URL=http://baby.indstate.edu/gga/pmag/paleosol.htm]Plug for Joe< !--UB Plug for Joe< !--UB
-->Plug for Joe
< !--UE-->
quote:
We already know (as of 9 months ago) that the fine structure constant (involves e, h and c if I remember) has changed over the history of the universe at the ppm (or ppb) level I think. Creationists are finding (see the RATE book) that decay processes can be finely dependent on such constants. I doubt it could be quite so finely tuned so I would expect some other constant to be involved. And it is either a dynamic of the universe or an impulse by God or both for us that dies down one way or another.

So does that mean you are proposing an increase in thermal conductivity to account for rapid cooling of these igneous bodies?
I guess an increase of about a billion times would explain the Flood. Maybe a 100 million or so by the end of the Flood and the early Cenozoic. Does that seem about right?
For the next week or so, I'll have to let Joe fill you in on the igneous cooling calculations... I'm going on a cruise. When I get back, maybe we could discuss this some more. I'd like to learn more about how the evidence in the GC can be used to constrain the YEC model in terms of changing physical constants, such as this pluton cooling/thermodynamics idea. Since you are a physicists, I figure we could play on your field for a while...[]Plug for Joe< !--UB Plug for Joe< !--UB
-->Plug for Joe
< !--UE-->
quote:
We already know (as of 9 months ago) that the fine structure constant (involves e, h and c if I remember) has changed over the history of the universe at the ppm (or ppb) level I think. Creationists are finding (see the RATE book) that decay processes can be finely dependent on such constants. I doubt it could be quite so finely tuned so I would expect some other constant to be involved. And it is either a dynamic of the universe or an impulse by God or both for us that dies down one way or another.

So does that mean you are proposing an increase in thermal conductivity to account for rapid cooling of these igneous bodies?
I guess an increase of about a billion times would explain the Flood. Maybe a 100 million or so by the end of the Flood and the early Cenozoic. Does that seem about right?
For the next week or so, I'll have to let Joe fill you in on the igneous cooling calculations... I'm going on a cruise. When I get back, maybe we could discuss this some more. I'd like to learn more about how the evidence in the GC can be used to constrain the YEC model in terms of changing physical constants, such as this pluton cooling/thermodynamics idea. Since you are a physicists, I figure we could play on your field for a while...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-06-2002 10:50 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-12-2002 12:14 AM wehappyfew has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024