Jump to content


Photo

Volcanic Island Chains


  • Please log in to reply
178 replies to this topic

#41 driewerf

driewerf

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 626 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 04 March 2017 - 10:28 AM

No, you removed the context with my discussion with Wibble for that analogy was only relevant to the rates changing. You are now saying the analogy means there was an explosion of some sort but it was only an analogy to show that energy can create force which can propel something at X rate but when the energy dissipates, the rate slows down. Do you understand that?

 

 

I'm sorry, your session seems to have expired, please leave a message with my secretary Miss Goku on the way out...

All my posts in this thread until now:

 

Is that your model for the Hawaiian Islands? That a flood caused and explosion and that the islands are the debris of that explosion?

 

 

I want to point out that time doesn't cause anything. It's the mouvement due to plate tectonics that caused the island chain. To assign 'time" as the cause is either a ridiuoulous or deliberate mischaracterisation of what geophycists  (and not "evolutionists") say.

 

 

So an explosion like event, yes?

 

 

 

I didn't quote mine. I asked for clarification.  I case you didn't know, there is a big difference between the two.

You continuously compare it with explosion like events (schrapnels, bullet from a gun etc). But okay, it wasn't an explosion.

  • Then how did the islands form and got moving, according to you?
  • And when did they form? 
  • Did they form together or at different times?

 

 

 

 

Mike do you see that little "?" that occurs so often at the end of my phrases? That's a question mark. It means that the phrase is a question. So you are free to clarify yourself. But if you don't want to I'll make the best of what you gave us.



#42 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,416 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 04 March 2017 - 01:06 PM

Have you read, "all my posts in this thread until now"?

 

This one seems to answer your questions; (post #19)

 

http://evolutionfair...hains/?p=136500



#43 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 822 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 04 March 2017 - 03:24 PM

Wibble it seems to me the things you have mentioned aren't really all that consequential. Certainly there is no reason to accept the inflated argon, the dodgy dates.


You do realise that CMI, AiG etc. simply have to say they are dodgy don't you ? With an a priori absolute belief of a 6000 yr old universe they have no choice but to find something, anything to write to say they can't be valid. How would excess argon in the lava still produce that age gradient graph of the islands exactly matching the measured drift rate ? And don't you find it a little suspect that AiG claim that the variation in decay rates was somehow locked in to the variation in plate movement ? No reason given of course.
 

The correlation you choose to focus on is the one that tallies with the dates, rather than the one that doesn't, which is your evo-choice.


Sorry, what is the one that doesn't ?
 

No doubt your usual style of repeating yourself is now in operation. (ad nauseam) That's all you're trying to do, repeat things we've addressed.


If you ignore stuff, I am going to repeat it.
 

 You can make a case for long age because of those factors, but it seems to me there is an equally compelling case for catastrophic causes ruling out the false assumption of uniformity.
 
Because it is PROVEN that catastrophe can inflate dates, and change rates, :D then really uniformity is a tenuous assumption. Why should I assume things in the past were always the same? It seems catastrophic forces can cause many of the features we see.


What exactly is the evidence for extremely rapid plate movement in the past ? And nothing is proven to vastly accelerate radioisotope decay rates (melting the planet not an issue for you clearly). If you are talking about tenuous assumptions, then look no further.
 

[font=verdana, geneva, sans-serif]For that reason we must not ISOLATE this one case of these islands, but we must consider ALL of the evidence. And for that reason, fresh dino meat just can't be old, and polystrate fossils just can't happen slowly, and planation can't happen by erosion or the soft rock would erode quicker than the hard rock but the erosion is pan-flat which is why it is called planation. It also leaves water eroded boulders behind. It seems clear only a massive water-force could create these features. For what could erode both soft and hard rock equally? If it happened slowly, the soft rock would erode and you wouldn't have a pan flat geomorphology. So then it basically had to have been cause by a force that would equally erode both hard and soft rock.


Hang on, you seem to think there is compelling evidence from the islands themselves of their youth, what is it ?



#44 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 822 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 04 March 2017 - 03:54 PM

From AiG
 

Old-earth, secular geologists say this plate movement has always been slow and gradual. To bolster their supposed case, they point to an interesting correlation. If you plot the radiometric ages of the different islands and seamounts against the distances from Kilauea, the rate of 2.6–3.6 inches (6.6–9.1 cm) per year just “happens to be” about the same as the plate movement today. However, if the plate motion had been uniformly slow at today’s rate, all the volcanic islands should have been of similar sizes.

 
Why do they say absolutely nothing about the subsidence which is both expected of massive volcanic islands and is observed and measured ? Why do they make no mention of the increasingly eroded nature of the islands along the chain (which you can see for yourself if you look at the satellite images on Google Earth). AiG state that the entire chain was produced "in a few years". Why aren't they equally eroded ?
 
With the "few years" in mind, please explain the drowned reef terraces (repeating myself here) to the north west of Hawaii Big Island that correlate with sea level changes during the Pleistocene Ice Age. Please explain the presence of very old and deeply drowned atolls on the northern seamounts that AiG say never even broke the surface because the plate was moving too fast. These reefs should not exist under this catastrophic plate model



#45 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 04 March 2017 - 11:30 PM

 But from a logical and scientific standpoint it seems unwarranted to believe in a theory that can only predict what can't be confirmed.

What can't be confirmed?

 

The use of radioactive decay to determine ages has been confirmed for around 70 years now.   

 

The stability of decay rates is well established.  The signature of Cobalt 56 in the light spectra of Sn1987a shows decay rates at the time and place of Sn1987a were consistent with those observed on Earth today.  (The supernova event itself took place over 167,000 years ago... according to other, independent lines of evidence.) 

 

 The whole things seems to be based on a lot of assumptions that can't be verified scientifically.

All of the assumptions on the methodology have been tested and verified scientifically.  Those that remain involve the sample to be tested, not the process.  That is why sample selection and processing are so important.  It's also why a huge amount of effort goes into dealing with potential issues with the sample under test.

 

 In the hypothetico-deductive model the last step is to :
 
4. Test (or experiment): Look for evidence (observations) that conflict with these predictions in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This formal fallacy is called affirming the consequent.

Without knowing what "2" and "3" are, it's pretty hard to give a specific comment.

 

There are more than 70 years of radiometric dating experiments that confirm it to be a valid methodology when done properly on an appropriate sample.  There are limitations to the process which is one of the reasons radioisotope dates (and virtually all other similar measurements in science) are presented with a range of uncertainty.

 

For example, a date may be given as 100 million years +/-10 million.  Normally the "+/-" range is a 95% confidence level.  What is really stated is "There is a 95% chance the sample is between 90 and 110 million years old."

 

But how would you go about to find such observations (stones) that conflict with the K-Ar model? If you measure a stone to be say 100 million years old, you can't confirm or deny that the stone actually is a 100 million years old (except by similar techniques based on similar assumptions).

All methods have assumptions.  The only real issue is whether or not the assumptions are reasonable and valid.  I have seen no evidence they aren't.  Besides, Ar-Ar has been the preferred method for at least 20 years because it is not subject to some of the major assumptions of K-Ar. 

 

 So it seem that the only way out of this is to simply trust the method or not. I choose the more skeptical path here :-)

Do you approach alleged "dating" of the "soft-dino" tissue with the same level of skepticism?

 

 I've glanced through the paper and even if they try to address the problem with excess argon I don't find any good explanation. We know that samples with known ages might contain excess argon. And regardless how the rock was created (because who knows how rocks where created if God created them) we at least know that they initial might contain argon. But how much is hard to know. So are we measuring the amount of initial argon in the rocks rather than age? And how would we find that out?

I wouldn't expect much more than "glancing through" the paper when confronted with 34 pages of such technical reading.  I pretty much do the same... and ignore the equations (unless they're what I'm looking for).

 

That paper was highly technical, and very long.  I've had a chance to do a bit more research, specifically on Ar-Ar.  Try this paper, https://ageofrocks.o...is-it-reliable/ ,  It's a lot shorter, far easier to understand, and it explains how Ar-Ar dating overcomes the excess argon problem of K-Ar:

First of all, the dating technique assumes that upon cooling, potassium-bearing minerals contain a very tiny amount of argon (an amount equal to that in the atmosphere). While this assumption holds true in the vast majority of cases, excess argon can occasionally be trapped in the mineral when it crystallizes, causing the K-Ar model age to be a few hundred thousand to a few million years older than the actual cooling age.

Secondly, K-Ar dating assumes that very little or no argon or potassium was lost from the mineral since it formed. But given that argon is a noble gas (i.e. it does not bond to any other elements), it can readily escape from minerals if they are exposed to significant amounts of heat for a prolonged period of time. Finally—and perhaps most importantly—the K-Ar dating method assumes that we can accurately measure the ratio between 40K and 40Ar.

......

After converting all 39K to 39Ar, geochronologists can effectively measure the isotopic ratio between potassium and argon simultaneously on the same instrument. This seemingly minor difference resulted in Ar-Ar dating being a much higher precision alternative to K-Ar dating by effectively removing the third assumption.

What about the other two assumptions behind the K-Ar method? Fortunately, the Ar-Ar method can address both by 1) building an isochron and 2) using a step-heating method during analysis. Isochron methods work by measuring a third, stable isotope in addition to the pair that gauges radioactive decay (in this case, 36Ar alongside 39Ar and 40Ar). Having this third isotope allows us to measure directly (and not simply assume) how much argon was in the mineral at the moment that it crystallized.

.... 

 the Ar-Ar has become a golden standard in determining the age of rocks. Unlike conventional K-Ar dating, which is generally accurate but relies on several assumptions, the Ar-Ar method is both extremely precise and allows for detailed analysis of the mineral’s history....

 

So, if God had infused excess argon into the rock when He created it .... we'd know.  We'd find out by Ar-Ar testing.

 

 

I think many of these dating techniques isn't really good science (and not a good argument for an old earth) since their predictions usually can't be confirmed or falsified.

Documentation has been produced that Ar-Ar successfully dated lava from the Vesuvius eruption of 79AD twenty years ago.  A means of falsification has also been presented .... demonstrate a significant change in radioisotope decay rates.  There has been no rebuttal. 

 

Simply repeating the claim doesn't make it true.



#46 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 04 March 2017 - 11:46 PM

Piasan, CMI states that the Hawaiian island - seamount chain are all post flood (due to lack of sedimentary rock). So I'm wondering why Snelling argues this accelerated decay reasoning, wasn't that supposed to have happened during the Flood year, so actually can't even be applied to the sequence under the YEC story ? Or have I got myself confused somewhere ?

So far as I know, the R.A.T.E. project and Brown's Hydroplates propose the acceleration of decay was during the Flood.  It's not like a lot of sediment would form in only one year.



#47 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 05 March 2017 - 12:07 AM

With the "few years" in mind, please explain the drowned reef terraces (repeating myself here) to the north west of Hawaii Big Island that correlate with sea level changes during the Pleistocene Ice Age. Please explain the presence of very old and deeply drowned atolls on the northern seamounts that AiG say never even broke the surface because the plate was moving too fast. These reefs should not exist under this catastrophic plate model

Another question.... why wouldn't turbidity in the water kill the coral?



#48 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 822 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 05 March 2017 - 03:10 AM

Another question.... why wouldn't turbidity in the water kill the coral?


Yes I thought that too but as CMI say the chain is all post Flood I gave it the benefit of doubt that suspended material would have settled by the time the volcanoes formed (unlikely I know). However, there seems to be a conflicting story between them and AiG who indicate that chain formation took place during the flood when there would indeed be high turbidity. Plus, coral polyps need a hard substrate to attach to not soft sediment. How reef formation suddenly sparks back into life is just brushed under the carpet by these guys. Today we see mass spawning events at coordinated times. Did eggs and sperm manage to survive months of catastrophe while being swept around the globe ? Then after that were able to meet by chance to form polyps in the right place to commence super rapid reef formation ? These things are not even raised as problems.

#49 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 05 March 2017 - 03:19 AM

Another question.... why wouldn't turbidity in the water kill the coral?

Yes I thought that too but as CMI say the chain is all post Flood I gave it the benefit of doubt that suspended material would have settled by the time the volcanoes formed (unlikely I know). However, there seems to be a conflicting story between them and AiG who indicate that chain formation took place during the flood when there would indeed be high turbidity. Plus, coral polyps need a hard substrate to attach to not soft sediment. How reef formation suddenly sparks back into life is just brushed under the carpet by these guys. Today we see mass spawning events at coordinated times. Did eggs and sperm manage to survive months of catastrophe while being swept around the globe ? Then after that were able to meet by chance to form polyps in the right place to commence super rapid reef formation ? These things are not even raised as problems.

Right now, they're favoring Baumgardner's Hydroplate theory.  Like Brown, Baumgardner has continents sliding along at tens of miles per hour.  There's going to be a huge amount of turbidity.  Coral should become extinct globally.



#50 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,416 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 05 March 2017 - 05:40 AM

 

A coral reef is the mass of limestone created as the polyps build their skeletons. How long it takes these reefs to form is a matter of conjecture.

It is commonly believed the existence of thick coral reefs proves the Earth must be millions of years old, based on the assumption that coral growth was slow.

However, the discovery in 1992 of this substantial wad of coral growing firmly attached to a modern shoe (less than four years old at the time) in waters off the Philippines is just one indicator among many that this is not the case.1

Marine biologists have discovered that coral contains growth rings, like those of a tree. A study by the Australian Institute of Marine Science has found a connection between coral growth rates and seasonal freshwater run-off or floods from nearby land.2

From strongly correlated historical records of river run-off and flooding, the researchers determined that the coral colony in question had taken only 118 years to grow 1.8 m (6 ft). This gave them a new method for determining the age of all reefs that make up Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. Based on this methodology, the outer barrier reefs (those furthest from the Australian coast and in the deepest water), which are about 55 m (180 ft) thick, would be less than 3,700 years old—not millions of years old as has been believed.

http://creation.com/...ble-and-mineral

 

 

 

Piasan: Another question.... why wouldn't turbidity in the water kill the coral?

 

Here we go again....this is moving into the different topic of, "what the post would cause, according to Piasan, and the DUMB God He believes the bible portrays, Who can't save His own creation from a flood He causes."

 

The topic isn't the causes of a flood. I always put a disclaimer about the debate of the flood-topic, because the flood isn't just a scientific model, but it is a miracle God caused and took responsibility for. If the flood is a miracle, then really we are already discussing a miraculous event, if we even mention it, not a solely scientific one.

 

It seems clear to me that because the flood was so catastrophic, it had to be a very precisely co-ordinated explosion, which basically can only be conducted by God. The scripture says God sat throned above the flood waters. (paraphrase) it also says He, "shut Noah in". 

 

This is always one of the features of our walk with God. God will basically say, in unspoken words so to speak..."you do what you can, then I will do the rest."

 

To think that God Himself would shut Noah in when Noah was limited, and to then assume He would let everything else in the oceans perish totalum, so that the future world would be wrecked, is stupid thinking.

 

So if we are only discussing post-flood things, fine, but if you are going to try to pull out the old, "God's too dumb to cause a flood", card, then take it to another topic because it isn't smart.

 

It's also easy to mock the creation of coral, but to neglect to look at the "evolution story" for coral, which is an absolutely ABSURD one, deserving of mockery, given the new, "modern" coral is supposed to be convergent coral.

 

The creation of coral with all it's complexities, by evolution, is much more absurd than anything the flood offers, for the creation of coral from primordial slime, all on it's own without God's help, is up there with Peter Pan.



#51 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,416 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 05 March 2017 - 05:52 AM

Piasan's Genesis. 18. 5. And God remembered Noah, so He went down after the flood to visit him. But then, like in Superman the movie, where Christopher Reeve's face is one of shock when he flies down from space and sees the devastation of an earthquake, God was struck with horror, for the ark was obliterated, and Noah and His family was dead. All life on earth was dead because God, who created thermodynamics, doesn't know as much about it as Piasan.

 

"All those things I can do....and I couldn't even save him!" - Calel - Superman the movie. (when his stepdad dies of a heart attack)

 

Yeah......I don't quite remember those bits in Genesis, Pi. Care to revise your silly stance on the flood?



#52 driewerf

driewerf

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 626 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 05 March 2017 - 08:15 AM

Logically irrelevant. You know why? because your example is one of isolated induction
 
That is to say, I can take a Jack the ripper suspect, and give you what seems like a solid induction as to why only him being the ripper, can explain such evidence but really you are taking a line of evidence in isolation, and ignoring all of the other evidence which does not fit your notion. 

Actually, you mean your favourite source of information, Creation.com, that clearly states that they will not consider those facts that fit their preconceived notion:
 

By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.



#53 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,416 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 05 March 2017 - 08:41 AM

Driewerf, I am not a member of CMI. I would not say that if a fact contradicts scripture that it can't be accepted, I just don't think there really are any facts that provably contradict it. But that is a complicated matter for even evidence against it doesn't mean it isn't true.

 

CMI is a source which contains about 8,000 articles that deal with all of the issues of EvC. My reliance on it is for it's convenience in accessing the old canard arguments of evolution they rebut on that site, fairly well and more completely and reliably than any other creationist source given the scientists that write them are fully qualified. It is a very useful source of information but I also read books too, some I am reading and have read are;

 

- The Greatest Hoax On Earth (Sarfati)

- The Works of William Paley.

- Mere Christianity. (C.S. Lewis)

- In The Beginning Was Information.

 

I also read other sites online such as creationworldview.org, AIG, discovery, etc...

 

As you are also aware, I also read evolutionary material, as I shown you in that other thread by quoting several sources, so as to show you how evolutionists argue many fallacies despite being, "expert".

 

So as to those facts which don't support the bible, on the face of it, they may seem to go against it at first, but as I shown earlier for example, what seems like great ages, turns out not to be when we discover how unreliable and selective the dating methods are. 

 

In life, there will always be facts that seem to contradict X. This is because induction can lead to two sets of facts for and against.

 

In a court of law for example, one may present a compelling case for guilt in murder, but you can also create a case against murder from other facts.

 

So you get competing inductions of evidence. Obviously if fresh dino meat is young, the rock it is in is dated old, it can't be both.

 

What does that prove? It proves that these facts in and of themselves, cannot prove either, for there could be some way the meat was preserved (highly improbable to the point of absurdity) or there could be a way the dates are wrong.

 

Logical question: can you have facts in this world which seem to go against the bible BUT it doesn't matter because those facts may seem to genuinely mislead us?

 

Answer; yes.

 

For example imagine if I made an argument that I had an alibi for when a murder was committed, but someone said they saw me in the area at the time. Imagine if because I was SCARED of being arrested for murder, I lied and I was in the area but I told the police I wasn't. As you can see, this witness would count as an evidence against me, but would it really count against my innocence?

 

Not really, it's just something that would seem to favour my guilt.

 

This is why logical rules don't permit affirmation of the consequent;

 

"if I was guilty I would lie about being in the area"

 

While that is true for most murderers perhaps, or a lot of them, it does not follow that the fact that I lied, means I am guilty of murder.

 

So what I have just done is provably show you that facts and evidence can go against the bible, even if the bible is true.

 

But I don't think that is something you are willing to consider, because you simply want to affirm the consequent because you are biased against the bible, as an evolutionary atheist.

 

That you can't understand the relevance of these things that I explain, is not my fault. Your request for me to come down to your level, cannot be granted. Effectively you are saying, "mike, be dumb and ignore these things you know of, and just accept evo."



#54 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 05 March 2017 - 04:57 PM

Another question.... why wouldn't turbidity in the water kill the coral?

Here we go again....this is moving into the different topic of, "what the post would cause, according to Piasan, and the DUMB God He believes the bible portrays, Who can't save His own creation from a flood He causes."

Yes, here we go again.  The creationist invokes a miracle by God to save his argument from the scientific problems it has.

 

I'll match the intelligence/ability of the God I believe against the one yours has any day.  You like billiards, here's my analogy.....

 

The God I believe in could be blindfolded.  You then rack the balls and have Him break.  He calls every ball, pocket, combination and bank.  Then, with a single stoke of the cue He makes every single one, just as stated.  Your version of God is the player who walks around the table picking balls up one-by-one and putting them in the pockets.

 

Of course God could save His own creation from the flood.  He is fully capable of making the water appear from nowhere, sit around for a year or so, then disappear without leaving a trace. 

 

However, when you appeal to a suspension of the natural laws by God, you have exited the scientific discussion.  This has nothing at all to do with either evolution or God's abilities.  It's about the Newtonian synthesis which holds that the natural laws apply at all times and in all places.

 

The topic isn't the causes of a flood. I always put a disclaimer about the debate of the flood-topic, because the flood isn't just a scientific model, but it is a miracle God caused and took responsibility for. If the flood is a miracle, then really we are already discussing a miraculous event, if we even mention it, not a solely scientific one.

You do realize it is you, not I who introduced the flood, don't you?

 

Why do you expect to introduce the flood as an explanation and not have your claim questioned?

 

Why do you introduce a "miracle God caused" as a scientific explanation?

 

It seems clear to me that because the flood was so catastrophic, it had to be a very precisely co-ordinated explosion, which basically can only be conducted by God. The scripture says God sat throned above the flood waters. (paraphrase) it also says He, "shut Noah in". 

 

This is always one of the features of our walk with God. God will basically say, in unspoken words so to speak..."you do what you can, then I will do the rest."

 

To think that God Himself would shut Noah in when Noah was limited, and to then assume He would let everything else in the oceans perish totalum, so that the future world would be wrecked, is stupid thinking.

 

So if we are only discussing post-flood things, fine, but if you are going to try to pull out the old, "God's too dumb to cause a flood", card, then take it to another topic because it isn't smart.

I'm not the one who brought up the flood or miracles by God.

 

So, your scientific answer to the release of enough heat energy by accelerated decay to melt the planet; the release of enough energy by CPT to evaporate all the planet's oceans several times over; and the turbidity caused by continents speeding along is:  "God took care of it."

 

OK.... that's pretty self explanatory.

 

It's also easy to mock the creation of coral, but to neglect to look at the "evolution story" for coral, which is an absolutely ABSURD one, deserving of mockery, given the new, "modern" coral is supposed to be convergent coral.

 

The creation of coral with all it's complexities, by evolution, is much more absurd than anything the flood offers, for the creation of coral from primordial slime, all on it's own without God's help, is up there with Peter Pan.

Another diversion from the topic by Mike.  Take it from the age of volcanic island chains to the evolution of coral.

 

The creation or evolution of coral isn't the topic.  Coral was mentioned as an indicator of the age of the islands.  That stands on its own regardless of how the first coral was formed.

 

CPT has been presented as an explanation for the islands.  I have made a point that coral requires pristine waters and CPT has continents sliding along at tens of miles per hour which is going to stir up a lot of turbidity and kill the coral before reefs can form. 

 

There is no mention or implication as to how initial corals were created or evolved.  Mike's repeated effort to divert the discussion is noted.



#55 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 05 March 2017 - 05:09 PM

Piasan's Genesis. 18. 5. And God remembered Noah, so He went down after the flood to visit him. But then, like in Superman the movie, where Christopher Reeve's face is one of shock when he flies down from space and sees the devastation of an earthquake, God was struck with horror, for the ark was obliterated, and Noah and His family was dead. All life on earth was dead because God, who created thermodynamics, doesn't know as much about it as Piasan.

 

"All those things I can do....and I couldn't even save him!" - Calel - Superman the movie. (when his stepdad dies of a heart attack)

 

Yeah......I don't quite remember those bits in Genesis, Pi. Care to revise your silly stance on the flood?

Of the three of us, God, you, and I, it is my suggestion that the one who knows the least about thermodynamics is you.  God can perform a miracle and suspend the laws of thermodynamics any time He wishes.

 

Is it your scientific explanation that is what God did?

 

My "silly stance" is just fine:

1)  The evidence of a Global flood (specifically a flood layer) is missing.

2)  All of the creation science proposals to explain the flood suffer from the same fatal flaw.  Extinction of all life on the planet.

3)  Should God so choose, He could perform a miracle to overcome both (1) and (2),

4)  Should you invoke (3) you have abandoned the scientific discussion.



#56 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 05 March 2017 - 06:37 PM

So if we are only discussing post-flood things, fine, .......

OK.... according to you, were the islands formed post flood?

 

Keep in mind, if they are pre-flood, Mauna Kea is over 4000 m above sea level.



#57 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,416 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 06 March 2017 - 08:09 AM

 

 

Piasan: Yes, here we go again.  The creationist invokes a miracle by God to save his argument from the scientific problems it has.

 

That's incorrect. When we are talking about the formation of islands, these particular islands, if we are just discussing whether they were formed quickly, or slowly, for whatever reason, relatively recently or in the long past, if we are discussing the age of them, (which is the debate at hand), then actually to start talking about what a flood would have done and the effects of a flood, is to bring in a miraculous event, into the discussion.

 

So we were discussing the age of the islands, and now you are mocking the effects of a worldwide flood, so then my objection is that if you are going to bring in Noah's flood, which is a miraculous event described in the bible, then it is not me bringing in a miracle into a scientific discussion, for you are the one that brought in the miraculous, for the flood is not a natural process of scientific theory. Nor is it my claim that the flood is solely a scientific matter.

 

 

 

Piasan: The God I believe in could be blindfolded.  You then rack the balls and have Him break.  He calls every ball, pocket, combination and bank.  Then, with a single stoke of the cue He makes every single one, just as stated.  Your version of God is the player who walks around the table picking balls up one-by-one and putting them in the pockets.

 

Of course this is a false comparison, which is rather silly because I believe that God is omnipotent, and could also do the former, so it's not a matter of what God can or can't do. For example I believe God made all of the clever contrivances in the body which takes study just to understand properly. I believe he create the muller cells in the eye which are the trumpet like structures which deliver light to the nerve net and cancel out the problem of the nerve-net in front of the receptors. There are also many incredibly clever designs in the eyes, to deal with focusing on close objects yet far objects. 

 

So it's not that I am saying God can't do it your way, I am saying it seems to me the bible is telling us He did not do it that way.

 

 

 

Piasan: However, when you appeal to a suspension of the natural laws by God, you have exited the scientific discussion. 

 

No, you exited it when you brought into the discussion a global flood, as though a global flood is science. You can't criticise a global flood scientifically and yet at the same time say such a theory is not science. It's a contradiction. If you want to criticise the flood of Noah's effects, you can't say "it's not science, but let's bring it into science for a moment so we can mock it by using science"

 

That's called a logical disjunction, where you can only have one or the other. If Noah's world flood is not science then you can't criticise it's effects scientifically by saying for example it would kill the coral, but if it is science then you can, but you also have to consider all of the scientific evidence in favour of it in that case, which makes much more sense than the uniform explanations, such as planation and polystrate fossils and fresh dino meat.

 

Which do you want? My position when I discuss the flood is that it is apologetics, because we have to believe by faith God cause this miracle, but that there will be some scientific evidence left from it, had it happened, because it still happened in the physical. 

 

So then it is not me bringing in the miraculous, when discussing the flood, because the flood was a miraculous event which gives me logical permission to consider the potentially miraculous aspects of the flood.

 

 

Piasan: I'm not the one who brought up the flood or miracles by God.

 

So, your scientific answer to the release of enough heat energy by accelerated decay to melt the planet; the release of enough energy by CPT to evaporate all the planet's oceans several times over; and the turbidity caused by continents speeding along is:  "God took care of it."

 

OK.... that's pretty self explanatory.

 

Not necessarily, not in that context. The explanation of how God took care of it may well be complex, I haven't studied them but I do know people have created models to deal with those problems.



#58 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 06 March 2017 - 10:34 AM

First, a correction.....

The initial mention of the global flood was in the OP when Wibble said:

How is the formation of the Hawaiian island chain explained according to a YEC timeframe ?
.....

Also, around the youngest islands (between Molokai and Hawaii) there are terraced reefs going down to a depth of 1500m caused by the combined effect of subsidence (as the island has moved away from the hotspot) and sea level rise at the end of successive glacial stages during the Pleistocene (making a mockery of the YEC assertion of a single 500 yr ice age after the Flood). Corals can only grow a few cms a year max and reefs don’t form below about 50m depth.

The usual line from the YEC camp that catastrophic plate tectonics occurred during the flood when the continents shifted into today's position over a period of days or weeks does not in the slightest tally with this evidence of radiometric ages, erosion and reef structures, while it is completely in accord with the mainstream view.

 

Now....

It's also easy to mock the creation of coral, but to neglect to look at the "evolution story" for coral, which is an absolutely ABSURD one, deserving of mockery, given the new, "modern" coral is supposed to be convergent coral.

 

The creation of coral with all it's complexities, by evolution, is much more absurd than anything the flood offers, for the creation of coral from primordial slime, all on it's own without God's help, is up there with Peter Pan.

 

.... now you are mocking the effects of a worldwide flood, .....

 

.... but let's bring it into science for a moment so we can mock it by using science"

 

Definitions  (according to the Mirriam Webster on-line dictionary):

Mockery .... insulting or contemptuous action or speech 

Mock .... to treat with contempt or ridicule

 

If Mike has somewhere where I have said something insulting or contemptous to or about him, I challenge him to bring it forward.  He might have something like me pointing out that he doesn't seem to have a problem with enough heat to melt the planet, but nowhere have I engaged is anything like this:

 

.... Pi. Care to revise your silly stance on the flood?

 

Mike.  You are a hypocrite.



#59 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,416 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 06 March 2017 - 11:12 AM

Piasan, really, don't be a drama queen, I didn't say you had mocked me I said you had mocked a flood by basically saying that the Lord your God can't handle the effects of it because you have banned Him from science.

 

When it comes to Jesus turning water into wine, I also only have the excuse of pleading miracles, Pi. I am baffled as to how you would approach that issue, one can only assume that you can't accept that it happened because it goes against science.

 

Question: is there anything you will allow God to do, which is miraculous? After all, floods and wine from water, are miraculous matters!

 

 

 

Piasan: Mike.  You are a hypocrite

 

But your stance on the flood is that it must obey methodological naturalism, even though it is clearly a miracle caused by God.

 

I say that from the start in matters of the flood, it is best to just be honest - this could only have been a miracle of God rather than just a natural event because of all of the complications involved. While I can see that "a miracle" isn't the best answer, it isn't the only answer. For example there may be a scientific answer you are unaware of. People don't always have the answers, but creation scientists do try and suggest possible explanations. Sometimes we don't know if we are trying to invent an explanation because we are unaware that God's hand was involved in some way.

 

Is it impossible for you to believe God can do miracles, then?



#60 driewerf

driewerf

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 626 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 06 March 2017 - 11:16 AM

Driewerf, I am not a member of CMI.

I know, and i've never said so. I wrote that it is you favourite source.
 

I would not say that if a fact contradicts scripture that it can't be accepted,

 

I know. But creation.com does. And that makes them unreliable.

It is just ironic that you falsely  accused Wibble of ignoring facts that don't fit his worldview, while using an information source that does this continuously.

 

I just don't think there really are any facts that provably contradict it. But that is a complicated matter for even evidence against it doesn't mean it isn't true.

 

Fair enough.
 
 

CMI is a source which contains about 8,000 articles that deal with all of the issues of EvC. My reliance on it is for it's convenience in accessing the old canard arguments of evolution they rebut on that site, fairly well and more completely and reliably than any other creationist source given the scientists that write them are fully qualified.

 

When they state in their mission that they will ignore all facts that don't fit their world view, qualifications count for nothing. And as for being qualified, in post nr 3 you refer to this:http://creation.com/hawaii-hot-spot, author Lita Cosner. Who is Lita Cosner:

Lita is a specialist in New Testament studies and obtained a B.A. (summa cum laude) in Biblical Studies from Oklahoma Wesleyan University in 2008. She received an M.A. (cum laude) in New Testament from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in 2012.

 

So, if you want to play the authority card (a logical fallacy anyway) you better chose a real authority.

 

 

It is a very useful source of information

 

It's rubbish.

 

 
 

I also read other sites online such as creationworldview.org, AIG, discovery, etc...

 

More rubbish.
 
 

As you are also aware, I also read evolutionary material, as I shown you in that other thread by quoting several sources, so as to show you how evolutionists argue many fallacies despite being, "expert".

 

You haven't shown as such. You have made oulandish ridiculous claims.
 
 

So as to those facts which don't support the bible, on the face of it, they may seem to go against it at first, but as I shown earlier for example, what seems like great ages, turns out not to be when we discover how unreliable and selective the dating methods are. 

 

Wrong. As Wibble has shown, different totally independent lines of evidence converge. Making them reliable.
 
 

In life, there will always be facts that seem to contradict X. This is because induction can lead to two sets of facts for and against.
 
In a court of law for example, one may present a compelling case for guilt in murder, but you can also create a case against murder from other facts.
 
So you get competing inductions of evidence.

 

Wrong. Some facts lead to different interpretations.

 

Obviously if fresh dino meat is young,

 

There has never been fresh dino meat found. They founf red blood cells and connective tissue, not fresh meat.

 

the rock it is in is dated old, it can't be both.

 

Correct. the rock is still old, the tissue is still old. Scientists got it wrong about some exceptional circumstances with which soft tissue can be preserved. No big deal.
 
 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users