Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   YEC Geologic Column - Created with apparent age?
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 16 of 82 (10986)
06-05-2002 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Tranquility Base
06-04-2002 9:03 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]2 Pet 3:3-9 3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, [b]be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
I wont be overly dogmatic on it but I wont agree it's a ridiculous interpretation. [/QUOTE]
JM: Stick 1 billion years in. It fits just as nicely. Methinks you are WAY overinterpreting this verse. What Peter is clearly saying is that time is irrelevant to God. TB is forcing a literal intepretation on a verse that is not meant to be interpreted literally.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-04-2002 9:03 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-05-2002 1:37 AM Joe Meert has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 82 (10990)
06-05-2002 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Joe Meert
06-05-2002 12:37 AM


But only the literal interpretation of 2 Pet 3 unifies Heb 4 with Rev 20.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Joe Meert, posted 06-05-2002 12:37 AM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Joe Meert, posted 06-05-2002 2:06 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 18 of 82 (10991)
06-05-2002 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Tranquility Base
06-05-2002 1:37 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
But only the literal interpretation of 2 Pet 3 unifies Heb 4 with Rev 20.
JM: Well, that's the game you are forced to play. Isn't it much simpler to conclude that the bible does not speak of absolute time? You are playing fast and loose with one translation. Tell me, are you convinced that the bible was transcribed and handed down without error? I find that nearly as hard to believe as a camel passing through a needle.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-05-2002 1:37 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-05-2002 2:28 AM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 82 (10994)
06-05-2002 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Joe Meert
06-05-2002 2:06 AM


^ I regularly use a half dozen translations and I can gaurentee you that almost nothing I have to say about the gospel, or this point in particular, is uniquely dependent on a single ambiguous verse.
You are aware that the dead sea scrolls closed the debate on the inaccuracies of the last two millenia of transcriptions (in our favour)? Regardless, I also do not deny that some inaccuracies have crept in.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-05-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Joe Meert, posted 06-05-2002 2:06 AM Joe Meert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Peter, posted 06-06-2002 6:28 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 29 by John, posted 06-08-2002 12:26 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
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

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 21 of 82 (11067)
06-06-2002 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Tranquility Base
06-05-2002 2:28 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ I regularly use a half dozen translations and I can gaurentee you that almost nothing I have to say about the gospel, or this point in particular, is uniquely dependent on a single ambiguous verse.
You are aware that the dead sea scrolls closed the debate on the inaccuracies of the last two millenia of transcriptions (in our favour)? Regardless, I also do not deny that some inaccuracies have crept in.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-05-2002]

Funny I thought the Dead Sea Scrolls were still hotly debated
by the scholars of the world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-05-2002 2:28 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 22 of 82 (11099)
06-06-2002 8:48 PM


The essence of what I was trying to drive at, in starting this topic, was some speculation from TB (or anyone else of the YEC gang), on what was the nature of the earth's original created continental crust.
Was it a geologically simple crust? Or was it the already rather convoluted mess that mainstream geology sees the precambrian geology being, at the end of the precambrian era? (I use that rather awkward sentence to exclude any deformation of the precambrian rocks, that may have happend later in the phanerazoic).
Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe
------------------
"I'm not a real geologist, but I play one on the internet."
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 06-06-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-06-2002 11:11 PM Minnemooseus has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 82 (11106)
06-06-2002 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by wehappyfew
06-05-2002 11:34 PM


Wehappy, thanks for suppressing your (in most ways understandable) dislike of creationism long enough to make that post above.
You asked Q1.Why are all the glacial evidences confined to the very end of the Tertiary? Again you'll have to educate me but I understand that the classic ice ages occurred in this period from a mainstream POV. We accept superposition etc so we agree with you (if that was correct) that this period is characterised by ice-ages. For us we (non-dogmatically) align it with a nuclear winter caused by flood volcanism. For us all of that Permian Siberian volcansim etc occurred in the flood year so we expect a strong nuclear winter followed by an equally catastrophic return to equilibrium via glacial melting. You don't get that catastrophic melting in your model becasue you appeal to more graudla causes. We have a sudden cooling and an understandably sudden warming.
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.
You asked Q2. about collapsing the Cenozoic into the last 4500 years. We would collapse it to a briefer period after the flood for the reasons mentioned in the answer to Q1 above. We imagine the situation exponentially returning to a shifted equilibrium like any shifting equilibrium process.
But I will have to do some reading on the Cenozoic period and ice ages or you'll have to correct me (or both).
So I agree with your suspicions of our model now that I have reread your post.
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.
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.
I've got a feeling the career flood geologists are talking about an impulse in the creation week as well as the flood. Obviously if this was studied quantitatively my 1000 year days would come into it. The reason I still like my 1000 year creation days is primarily theological although I can agree with you guys on one thing
- I can't imagine the Precambiran being generated in 24 hours!
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-06-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by wehappyfew, posted 06-05-2002 11:34 PM wehappyfew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Joe Meert, posted 06-07-2002 12:36 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 27 by TrueCreation, posted 06-07-2002 4:15 PM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 28 by wehappyfew, posted 06-07-2002 9:45 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 82 (11112)
06-06-2002 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Minnemooseus
06-06-2002 8:48 PM


Moose I've read far more mainstream geoglogy than flood geology and as you all know I am not a geologist.
In that context I'll speculate for all sorts of theological and scientific reasons that the earth's surface was created as unlayered bed rock underwater. As usual even that I would have as some sort of dynamical process. eg - the rock may have been liquid and came to it's own temperature and vertical compositonal equilibrium.
I'm happy to hear your comment but remember this is just off the top of my head.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-06-2002 8:48 PM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-07-2002 1:37 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 25 of 82 (11116)
06-07-2002 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Tranquility Base
06-06-2002 10:50 PM


quote:
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"?
JM: The cooling rate of igneous bodies is based on non-controversial physics. You've also neglected the non-Quaternary ice ages, i.e. Ordovician, Permo-Carboniferous, Neoproterozoic and Paleoproterozoic. You'll need to fit all those into the flood model as well.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-06-2002 10:50 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 26 of 82 (11122)
06-07-2002 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Tranquility Base
06-06-2002 11:11 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Moose I've read far more mainstream geoglogy than flood geology and as you all know I am not a geologist.
In that context I'll speculate for all sorts of theological and scientific reasons that the earth's surface was created as unlayered bed rock underwater. As usual even that I would have as some sort of dynamical process. eg - the rock may have been liquid and came to it's own temperature and vertical compositonal equilibrium.
I'm happy to hear your comment but remember this is just off the top of my head.

Fair enough! My speculation is that the earliest crust was all oceanic like. Perhaps with a more ultramafic composition. At what point the oceans came to be is another question.
I imagine that, to even the the more knowledgable than I, the mainstream scientific thought on the nature of the original crust is highly speculative. The evidence is long lost, or at least extremely disguised.
Will try to do some further research, or perhaps Joe can chip in with some info.
Still, however, the bottom line still seems to be that a lot of time consuming evolution of the continental crust happened before the end of the preCambrian.
The "I know enough to know how ignorant I am" Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-06-2002 11:11 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 82 (11155)
06-07-2002 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Tranquility Base
06-06-2002 10:50 PM


"You asked Q1.Why are all the glacial evidences confined to the very end of the Tertiary? Again you'll have to educate me but I understand that the classic ice ages occurred in this period from a mainstream POV. We accept superposition etc so we agree with you (if that was correct) that this period is characterised by ice-ages. For us we (non-dogmatically) align it with a nuclear winter caused by flood volcanism. For us all of that Permian Siberian volcansim etc occurred in the flood year so we expect a strong nuclear winter followed by an equally catastrophic return to equilibrium via glacial melting. You don't get that catastrophic melting in your model becasue you appeal to more graudla causes. We have a sudden cooling and an understandably sudden warming."
--As it accounts for the majority of the meteorite impacts such dusts would also contribute to this nuclear winter effect. Both volcanic and impact materials in the atmosphere may also help in reducing the effects of the abundant water vapors in the atmosphere from evaporation. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas and would if these ashes/dusts were not present turn the earth into a global pressure cooker.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-06-2002 10:50 PM Tranquility Base has not 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

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 82 (11166)
06-08-2002 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Tranquility Base
06-05-2002 2:28 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ I regularly use a half dozen translations and I can gaurentee you that almost nothing I have to say about the gospel, or this point in particular, is uniquely dependent on a single ambiguous verse.

Do you mind listing those half dozen?
From what I can tell, most translations are reworks of old translations and not translations from the original sources-- if such even exist. Basically, you've got writes and rewrites and rewrites of rewrites of the Vulgate, a translation into latin of a work compiled by Eusebius by order of Constantine circa the year of our lord 300.
Hence, it makes a lot of sense that the translations line up pretty well among themselves.
But the real problems are cross-translational (hehe don't I sound smart using big words and all) like the two different version of the order of creation in Genesis-- my personal fav.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-05-2002 2:28 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-12-2002 12:22 AM John has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 82 (11366)
06-12-2002 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by wehappyfew
06-07-2002 9:45 PM


Wehappy, I'm talking about the evoltuion of physical constants as a mechanism for accerlated radioisotpoic decay.
What exactly is your cooling problem? Are these lava beds too cool today? Is there evidence that it had to have completely cooled before hte next sediment? Who says it's a problem? I'm not saying it isn't, but what is the specific problem? Obviously I simply propose that the flood sedimentary record is interspersed with lava flows that cooloed partially before the next layers and finally while buried. Quantitatively - who knows? But we need to identify a specific quantitative problem before we spend time on it.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-11-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by wehappyfew, posted 06-07-2002 9:45 PM 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