Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,058 Year: 5,315/9,624 Month: 340/323 Week: 184/160 Day: 1/19 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Would ID/Creationists need new, independant dating techniques??
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 36 of 144 (589865)
11-04-2010 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by slevesque
11-04-2010 4:45 PM


- One that is consistent with the given age. For example, the accumulation of salt in the ocean gives a maximum age consistent with a young earth.
Even given the flawed methods of creationists, the maximum age came out to hundreds of thousands of years, didn't it? Which would not be consistent with a young Earth.
However, in fairness, we should note that this is one case where omphalism is arguably justified. If God magicked saltwater fish into existence in the beginning, he'd have to make the seas salt from the get-go, since most saltwater fish perish in fresh water.
You have an input, output and the total amount of something. This is the basic requirement for any dating method whatsoever. This alone shows that the accumulation of salt in the ocean can be used
Except that, as we demonstrated on your thread on this topic, creationists are ignoring several outputs.
But more importantly, you have to show that today's condition of the earth is appreciably different then at any other moment in the past. For all we know, there is nothing unusual about the current conditions that would suggest this is not representative of how it has generally always been.
We know that the conditions are different because currently no basin-wide marine evaporite deposits are being formed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by slevesque, posted 11-04-2010 4:45 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by slevesque, posted 11-04-2010 10:18 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 46 of 144 (589914)
11-05-2010 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by slevesque
11-04-2010 10:18 PM


92 million years I think. But of course, this is going all the way back to when there wasn't a grain of salt in the ocean, a situation that never was even in the naturalistic history of the oceans.
Really?
But hey, if RAZD can correlate a 8k year old tree with the 4,5Ba of the earth, why couldn't I correlate a maximum of 92Ma with a 6k year old earth ?
I don't think you're using the word "correlate" correctly. And the answer would be that the Earth can be older than some of its contents but not younger.
Didn't we discuss this once in another thread ? Those cases where something is only a sign of age if you presuppose it's naturalistic origin ?
We did. And I drew a distinction between cases where God would have to create the Earth looking old in order to fulfill his plan (e.g. salt in the oceans, the existence of topsoil) and cases where the only thing that this achieves is to mess with the heads of geologists.
I admit that the salinity of the ocean falls into the first category.
One exception per million years (random number) does not negate the fact, that for all intents and purposes the assumption that the current conditions are representative of how it has generally always been.
But however rare and exceptional these circumstances may have been, they remain of significance because what was rare and exceptional about them was that they involved the deposition of staggeringly huge amount of halites. The Louann Salt, for example, covers 800,000 square kilometers and is four kilometers deep. That's seven quadrillion tonnes of salt. Are we meant to ignore that simply because the time it spent forming was brief compared to the vast extent of geological time?
It's as though someone observed that I was not presently eating, and concluded that I must have starved to death years ago. I point out that I spend at least half an hour a day shoveling food into my mouth. He replies that the fact that I rarely eat (only about 2% of the time, as I admit) does not negate the fact that for all intents and purposes the current conditions are "representative of how it has generally always been".
Yes ... me not eating is "representative of how it has generally always been" ... but the exceptions, however rare by comparison, are the times that I spend eating.
---
Incidentally, would you like to speculate on how these massive evaporite deposits of soluble minerals are formed during a global flood?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by slevesque, posted 11-04-2010 10:18 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by slevesque, posted 11-06-2010 5:24 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 57 of 144 (590196)
11-06-2010 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by slevesque
11-06-2010 5:07 PM


Saline Giants
slevesque writes:
Maybe if you stay here long enough, and discuss with the right approach you will be able to see how I explain all the pieces fit into a recent flood model.
Sure. Let's start with the saline giants.
Dr A writes:
Incidentally, would you like to speculate on how these massive evaporite deposits of soluble minerals are formed during a global flood?
I'm fascinated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by slevesque, posted 11-06-2010 5:07 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 60 of 144 (590203)
11-06-2010 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by slevesque
11-06-2010 5:24 PM


Except, you didn't really read Humphreys paper have you ? Or else you would have seen that halite deposition is adressed:
It is. And in just the way that I criticized. I quote:
quote:
However, the major halite deposits accumulate currently from concentrated river water on the continents, not from the ocean. Modern marine sedimentary deposits are nearly devoid of halite.
You see? Because it isn't happening now somehow we can discount the known, certain, indisputable fact that it happened in the past. Quadrillions of tonnes of salt are just so much chopped liver.
Yet, there would be reason for doubt if, after I questioned where you get all those calories for your daily movement, you would answer ''I always eat an apple in the morning''. (Which is the equivalent in your analogy of the halite depositions')
Which would be a fair analogy if I claimed that the formation of saline giants was the only or principal output of sodium.
To continue your analogy, the proposition that I eat an apple a day would not contradict the proposition that I also eat a three-course dinner every day.
I'm no expert, but if you say these come from the oceans, the same mechanism probably would apply in the case of a global flood. Random guess.
To call that guess "random" is much too kind. I can think of plenty of other less flattering adjectives.
Try again. The Louann Salt is four kilometers deep. The evaporation of a kilometer of seawater would produce a mere fourteen meters of minerals. And you suggest that this saline giant was produced by a lot of rain. Of water. Which dissolves water-soluble minerals. Such as salt.
Do I wake or sleep?
I could probably try and find if the answer can be found in the creationist litterature.
Also, let us know if you stumble across anything in "flood geology" having any predictive power whatsoever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by slevesque, posted 11-06-2010 5:24 PM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by slevesque, posted 11-07-2010 3:54 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 64 of 144 (590218)
11-06-2010 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by slevesque
11-06-2010 5:24 PM


The Creationist Literature
I could probably try and find if the answer can be found in the creationist litterature.
This may be a bit off-topic, but I want to rant a bit, indulge me.
Doesn't the "creationist literature" seem a bit forced, even to you?
Let me explain what I mean. To an actualist like myself, nothing is more simple and straightforward than sedimentology. Those things that look like lithified flaser deposits? They're lithified flaser deposits. The things that look eactly like lithified sand dunes? They're lithified sand dunes. The things that look exactly like lithified varves of proglacial lakes? They're lithified varves of proglacial lakes. The rocks that look just like welded tuff? They are welded tuff. The stuff that looks exactly like glacial moraines? Those would be glacial moraines. Chalk looks exactly like the product of millions of years of deposition of coccoliths, and I have an explanation for that. It is the product of millions of years deposition of coccoliths.
And you guys want to explain this by one singular event. All these things are somehow consequences of your imaginary magic flood.
Don't you yourself find this attitude rather difficult?
Let's do another analogy. Walking through the Serengeti, I notice the footprints of lions and zebras and elephants and so forth. I determine that these are the footprints of elephants and so forth. I see that what I identify as the footprints of elephants are the exact same shape as the feet of elephants. I note that the stride length of these footprints are exactly consistent with the stride length of elephants. I watch elephants walk, and look at the footprints they leave, and I see that these impressions are exactly the same as those that I see in the Serengeti. I do the same with the footprints of the zebras and the lions and the giraffes.
Then some man comes up to me and states that despite all this, these footprints were left by one single animal that no-one has ever seen.
This man is a creationist.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by slevesque, posted 11-06-2010 5:24 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Straggler, posted 11-06-2010 9:08 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 69 by slevesque, posted 11-07-2010 4:37 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 71 of 144 (590381)
11-07-2010 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by slevesque
11-07-2010 4:37 PM


Re: The Creationist Literature
Glacial moraines are glacial moraines in the creationist litterature, for example.
Creationists admit that?
Could you quote them? --- I could do with a laugh right now.
And also, note that their is also a bit of a circular reasoning in all this. Why does Chalk look like the product of milions of years of deposition of coccoliths, if not for the fact that you already believe this is how it forms in the first place.
Because we can measure the rate of deposition of calcareous ooze.
The reality is, had you not have any preconceived notions on how chalk forms, this particular explanation certainly wouldn't jump at you when you would look at chalk for the first time. It would simply look like chalk, and who knows if after examination you would have arrived at the same conclusion as the one you have now.
When you invent my opinions for me, I know for certain that you're wrong. I might be wrong about anything else, but I am definitely right about why I hold the opinions that I hold. It's my brain. They're my opinions. The reasoning by which I know those opinions is known to me. And, apparently, not to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by slevesque, posted 11-07-2010 4:37 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by slevesque, posted 11-10-2010 1:52 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 97 of 144 (591289)
11-12-2010 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Buzsaw
11-12-2010 9:30 PM


Re: Studying Ancient Corals/YEC Duration Of Day
Would you mind elaborating on your question?
I wrote an article on it here, this may help.
There are also forms of sedimentary deposition called rhythmites which do much the same thing, i.e. they allow you to work out the number of days in a year or months in a year or days in a month. I haven't yet researched these in any detail.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Buzsaw, posted 11-12-2010 9:30 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Buzsaw, posted 11-12-2010 11:18 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 98 of 144 (591291)
11-12-2010 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Buzsaw
11-12-2010 9:41 PM


Re: Independent Dating Techniques
How much of your cited data assumes a relative uniform non-disaster model? The non-uniform disaster model implicating a pre-flood vapor canopy premise would necessarily call for an alternative interpretation of observable evidence. No?
But you can't say how, because it isn't really a model. You can just wave your hands and say maybe the magic flood would somehow make it look as if the Earth was old and that there wasn't a magic flood.
The problem with this, as that I have pointed out, is that (apart from you not having a model or a mechanism) it defies belief that any event would screw up all the very different dating methods in lockstep, so that they were all wrong and yet all mutually consistent.
I'll see if I can find one of my old posts on this subject ... ETA: found one. I explained the problem to you here.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Buzsaw, posted 11-12-2010 9:41 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 106 of 144 (591304)
11-12-2010 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Buzsaw
11-12-2010 11:09 PM


Re: Off topic; I'm not going there, Got that? .
Why are some of you people repeating demands for flood, sudden disaster non-uniform planet model and canopy evidence in this thread which would derail this thread?
Well you brought it up. If factoring in this model is an important part of creationist techniques, then saying what the model is and what the evidence is for it would seem to be important. After all, in this same post you go on to write ...
What's wrong about referral of a disaster flood model premise relative to my points? How is that a less valid model than referring to a relative uniform model?
You see? You can't have your cake and eat it. You can't use this "model" to bolster you arguments and then not discuss what the model is and how it would affect dating.
What if we started doing that? A creationist raises what he thinks is a problem with some aspect of real science. "Oh," we reply, "that's all explained by the process of confustibilation." Naturally enough, he then asks: "What's confustibilation, and how does it answer my argument?"
And then, if we were like you, we'd answer: "That's off topic and we refuse to discuss it."
It's not off-topic if we're invoking it as the answer to a question which is on-topic. It is then part of the topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Buzsaw, posted 11-12-2010 11:09 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 110 of 144 (591308)
11-12-2010 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Buzsaw
11-12-2010 11:32 PM


Re: Off topic; I'm not going there, Got that? .
I've explained why the flood model premise would not be compatible to conventional dating data. I've cited some reasons which none of you people are refuting. For example, true or false; would a global Genesis flood model, factoring in other Genesis data and observeable physical evidence, such as tropical stuff in the arctics, etc, interpreted on that hypothetical model implicate a non-uniform atmosphere and earth surface?
That would depend on the model.
If you can show us a model and demonstrate that it would, the question would then be --- how would this affect dating?
Remember that in real science the global climate, the composition of the atmosphere, and the surface of the Earth have all undergone changes, and that this does not affect the dating techniques used ... so I don't see why an imaginary cause of the same effects should behave any differently.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Buzsaw, posted 11-12-2010 11:32 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 114 of 144 (591334)
11-13-2010 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by JonF
11-13-2010 8:28 AM


For example, any creationist who has any measure of a clue abourt thermodynamics ...
... has long ago returned to his home planet on the back of his wingd pig.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by JonF, posted 11-13-2010 8:28 AM JonF has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 137 of 144 (618779)
06-06-2011 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by PaulK
06-06-2011 2:11 AM


Re: ID and age of earth
So ID SHOULD be taking a clear old-Earth stance as a movement, right ? But they don't.
Well, that depends on who they are. Behe is very definitely old-earth. And believes in common descent ...
Aren't they just pandering to Young Earth Creationists by trying to smooth over the gap between OEC and YEC ?
I think it's more basic than that --- in order to be a "movement" at all they have to ignore their differences and focus on what appears to be the only thing they agree on. A friend of mine told me the other day about when he was a Mormon and found himself in the same demonstrations as radical lesbians ... when, and only when, the issue was pornography. Obviously when they were standing side by side waving the same banners there were some things that they tacitly agreed not to discuss.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by PaulK, posted 06-06-2011 2:11 AM PaulK 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