Proof against abiogenesis/evolution -- affirmative proof of God

[True_Blue]

of course i dont have a degree at MIT; I wouldnt be so foolish as to apply there. =)

the strength of his ideas becomes nothing once the proof shatters his ideas; theres no strength in that; only foolishness.

Okay, what proof would you like to bring to the table on this thread? I am interested in a good rebuttal of the good PhD's hydroplate model.

 

[mpok1519]

I believe the debunking of hydroplate theory has already been posted.

I dont know if you saw it though.

 

[True_Blue]

Here's an example of plate tectonics that I like for its clarity

The Hawaiian Islands, along with a chain of islands and seamounts to their west, are thought to be the product of a hot spot of magma underlying the earth's crust, strung out across the surface as the Pacific plate slowly slides above the hotspot. According to GPS data, the Pacific plate is currently moving WNW at about 3 inches per year. If the Pacific plate has really been moving at about that rate for a long time, there should be a clear relationship between the age of the islands (as determined from radiometric dating) and the distance of the island/seamount along the chain. This is a testable prediction, and one that has in fact been tested. If you plot the estimated age of the islands against their distance from Hawaii, you see this:

The plate motion you would infer, just from looking at the graph, is 3.4 inches per year, in excellent agreement with the GPS data. It has obviously been going on for many millions of years without a lot of change. This looks like pretty strong evidence to me.

I'm glad you bring up this evidence. As the plate moved over the top of the hotspot, as you point out, a volcanic eruption ensued. The more time a plate sits over the hotspot, the larger the resulting island. In my paradigm, the movement of the plates has decayed asymptotically toward zero, according to the Second Law. Thus, when the plate moved rapidly, the resulting island was very small because the plate's time over the hotspot was brief. As the plate slowed down, the islands got larger and larger. Now that the plate has come to rest, the Big Island of Hawaii is by far the largest volcanic island because it sits over the hotspot to this day. Thus, the evidence of the Hawaiian island chain is wonderful proof of catastrophism.

If uniformitarianism were true, then if the plate were moving at a constant rate, then the hotspot would be getting more intense over time rather than less. This would violate the 2nd Law.

[As a disclaimer, the hotspot theory is not universally recognized as true, but for purposes of this post, I assume it's true.]

 

[Baggins]

In a Biblical pre-Flood paradise, followed by a catastrophic flood, I would expect to see fossil fuel deposits all over the world, including underneath land and sea.

Explain why, you can expect to see anything but without a model explaining it in detail this is just waffle

I would expect that the fossil fuel deposits would be agglomerated together with water sweeping the foliage in huge piles.

Oil is not really made of foliage, the vast majority is made of algae.

See this is what happens when you just make things up without having a basic understanding of what you are talking about.

This is why you are becoming a figure of fun and a target of ridicule.

I would expect to see vast sediment on top of the piles.

On top of piles of what? This doesn't mean anything at all it is verbiage, you think it sounds good so you keep spouting it but it is meaningless, more waffle.

I would expect to see fossil fuel deposits in all latitudes of the world, including the north and south poles (so that Adam could walk around naked on the North Pole).

Why?

In a uniformitarian view, I would for the most part expect no coal or oil deposits at all, since the formation of fossil fuels requires sudden and intense heat/pressure.

The formation of oil and coal and gas does not require sudden and intense heat and pressure, oil formation happens over extended periods of time are quite low temperatures.

Once again spouting off without having done even a cursory check of something like wikipedia just makes you look ridiculous.

Any coal or oil that would form would be from localized disturbances, and be relatively trivial with an identifiable source of sediment (nearby volcano, asteroid impact, etc). I would expect to see hundreds of layers of coal rather than a few or just one.

Why? There is a perfectly good explanation of coal/seat earth/marine shale cyclothem in uniformitarianism - repeated transgression. I'd love to hear how asteroid impacts make cyclothems.

I love the way you have now changed from one big coal deposit to hundreds of smaller ones, at least it proves you can read and take in basic information, I was starting to think you were a Robert Byers alias.

I would expect to see no fossil fuels in the polar areas,

Wrong then.

or else any fossil fuels would have a triangular shape that shows the movement of the continent slowly over time.

Triangular coals, excellent.

You obviously know practically zero about hydrocarbons.

But don't let that stop your imagination running wild

 

[Baggins]

K, first of all, I don't care at all about this guy's PhD at MIT, and I care even less about how he financed it. I care about the strength of his ideas. I evaluate the strength of ideas based on merit of the ideas themselves, not polls, education, or character attacks. Second, even if I did evaluate based on such things, do you have a PhD in anything? Do you have a PhD from MIT? Who are you to attack his credibility? Have you read the article I linked to?

I have.

Have you read the Glenn Morton - Answers in Creation article I posted showing why it is garbage?

Did you understand why Brown's hydroplate theory is garbage?

 

[Baggins]

I'm glad you bring up this evidence. As the plate moved over the top of the hotspot, as you point out, a volcanic eruption ensued. The more time a plate sits over the hotspot, the larger the resulting island. In my paradigm, the movement of the plates has decayed asymptotically toward zero, according to the Second Law. Thus, when the plate moved rapidly, the resulting island was very small because the plate's time over the hotspot was brief. As the plate slowed down, the islands got larger and larger. Now that the plate has come to rest, the Big Island of Hawaii is by far the largest volcanic island because it sits over the hotspot to this day. Thus, the evidence of the Hawaiian island chain is wonderful proof of catastrophism.

If uniformitarianism were true, then if the plate were moving at a constant rate, then the hotspot would be getting more intense over time rather than less. This would violate the 2nd Law.

[As a disclaimer, the hotspot theory is not universally recognized as true, but for purposes of this post, I assume it's true.]

Your just going to ignore the links to thousands of papers showing that the earth's plates are in motion today aren't you?

Do you think that is morally correct behaviour for a Christian?

Uniformitarianism doesn't mean that plates move at constant speeds.

Why don't you read a scientific definition of what uniformitarianism means before posting such obviously false statements, they don't make you look good at all.

I'd also be interested in a peer reviewed paper arguing against mantle plumes.

If by "not recognised as universally true" you mean not recognised by Creationists as true just write that

 

[us38]

In my paradigm, the movement of the plates has decayed asymptotically toward zero, according to the Second Law.

Please explain how you reached that conclusion, starting with:

If uniformitarianism were true, then if the plate were moving at a constant rate, then the hotspot would be getting more intense over time rather than less. This would violate the 2nd Law.

Please, do tell how hotspots getting more intense would violate

In case you haven't figured it out, everytime you throw out the phrase "2nd law" as an explanation for something it doesn't cover, I'm going to ask you to show the steps leading from the 2nd law to your conclusion.

 

[thaumaturgy]

In a uniformitarian view, I would for the most part expect no coal or oil deposits at all, since the formation of fossil fuels requires sudden and intense heat/pressure.

Sudden and intense? Hmmm, in my MS in organic geochemistry and my PhD in coal geochemistry I didn't catch that "requirement" as a necessity. In fact coal and oil can form quite slowly with reasonable heat. Perhaps hotter than you could stand, but it is not necessary to have "sudden" and intense heat.

Where did you get that idea?

Why not talk to a geologist?

Any coal or oil that would form would be from localized disturbances, and be relatively trivial with an identifiable source of sediment (nearby volcano, asteroid impact, etc).

-sigh-

I would expect to see hundreds of layers of coal rather than a few or just one.

Would it matter if people who have personal experience in this area provided you with information? Or would you just ignore it?

I would expect to see no fossil fuels in the polar areas,

Why is that? Is it because you don't understand plate tectonics (or as you like to call it "Continental Drift")?

or else any fossil fuels would have a triangular shape that shows the movement of the continent slowly over time.

Huh?

 

[thaumaturgy]

I'm not Jesus, Thaumaturgy.

So are you saying only Jesus could pass a Logic class?

 

[thaumaturgy]

As the plate slowed down, the islands got larger and larger. Now that the plate has come to rest, the Big Island of Hawaii is by far the largest volcanic island because it sits over the hotspot to this day.

Uhhhh, you do realize that the Emperor Seamounts and the older islands are weathered to a small size, right? I know it's hard to remember but the smaller islands are older and since they are no longer "growing" by addition of lava, they do tend to erode away.

But if it reinforces your preconcieved bias and it requires you ignore geology, then by all means, please insist on this.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

I'm glad you bring up this evidence. As the plate moved over the top of the hotspot, as you point out, a volcanic eruption ensued. The more time a plate sits over the hotspot, the larger the resulting island. In my paradigm, the movement of the plates has decayed asymptotically toward zero, according to the Second Law. Thus, when the plate moved rapidly, the resulting island was very small because the plate's time over the hotspot was brief. As the plate slowed down, the islands got larger and larger. Now that the plate has come to rest, the Big Island of Hawaii is by far the largest volcanic island because it sits over the hotspot to this day. Thus, the evidence of the Hawaiian island chain is wonderful proof of catastrophism.

If uniformitarianism were true, then if the plate were moving at a constant rate, then the hotspot would be getting more intense over time rather than less. This would violate the 2nd Law.

[As a disclaimer, the hotspot theory is not universally recognized as true, but for purposes of this post, I assume it's true.]

You paradigms never take in all the available data; how about including erosion rate, eruption rates etc.

And what’s all this nonsense about violating the second law of thermodynamics, for a start the Earth is not an isolated system, in fact I do not know of an isolated system. Also plate tectonics is powered by the stored energy for stars, i.e. radioactive decay of heavy elements produces in super nova explosions not some imaginary magical mystical event 3000 years ago.

As for hot spot theory, it's true not all agree, but no one is advocating any hypothesis or theory that would support YECs world paradigm

 

[mpok1519]

hyrdroplate theory is garbonzobeans! lol

I mean, you think water is supporting the earth's plates like a big water bed? Thats simply impossible; considering how geologists have been digging through the earth for a while now, and no, theres no proof a big water-bed supports the earth's plates. I'm sorry; but the very idea is so ridiculous a ten year old might be able to debunk it.

Also, did you read the debunking? Did you understand it Blu? What did you not understand?

 

[Naraoia]

I'm glad you bring up this evidence. As the plate moved over the top of the hotspot, as you point out, a volcanic eruption ensued. The more time a plate sits over the hotspot, the larger the resulting island. In my paradigm, the movement of the plates has decayed asymptotically toward zero, according to the Second Law. Thus, when the plate moved rapidly, the resulting island was very small because the plate's time over the hotspot was brief. As the plate slowed down, the islands got larger and larger. Now that the plate has come to rest, the Big Island of Hawaii is by far the largest volcanic island because it sits over the hotspot to this day. Thus, the evidence of the Hawaiian island chain is wonderful proof of catastrophism.

The only problem with this wonderful evidence is that it totally ignores erosion. You know, if an island has been beaten by winds and rains and those big waves in the middle of the ocean for millions of years it's kinda reasonable that it got smaller than a young island still being fed by the hot spot or just detached from it.

I wouldn't have thought True Blue would ever ignore a destructive force

If uniformitarianism were true, then if the plate were moving at a constant rate, then the hotspot would be getting more intense over time rather than less.

As I've said above, it wouldn't.

This would violate the 2nd Law.

Why? How does a local increase in volcanic activity violate the (real) second law? Do all volcanic eruptions violate it? New volcanoes?

[As a disclaimer, the hotspot theory is not universally recognized as true, but for purposes of this post, I assume it's true.]

Show me one scientific theory that's universally recognised as true

 

[True_Blue]

I have.

Have you read the Glenn Morton - Answers in Creation article I posted showing why it is garbage?

Did you understand why Brown's hydroplate theory is garbage?

I have read other rebuttals of Brown's hydroplate theory. Some are decent, but Glenn Morton's theory isn't one of the good ones [in my view]. Here is my rebuttal:

1. Creationists already believe that the highest mountains pre-Flood were extremely low-altitude by today's standards. Pre-Flood, one would be able to walk around naked anywhere on the surface of the earth without discomfort, so it stands to reason that any hills would not be too high in elevation. The Bible doesn't say how high the highest hill was, only that the floodwaters were 20 feet higher than the highest point of elevation
2. We don't know the elasticity of the pre-Flood crust, so it's hard to say how much exogenous pressure the crust could withstand before breaking.
3. God created the world knowing that mankind would sin (that's why he created The Tree) and knowing that the Flood would take place. It was in his will, though not his perfect will (theologians can explain the difference between the two).
4. The subterranean water did not have to be 10 km below the surface, so long as it was far enough below the surface to be accurately referred to as the Great Deep. Assuming a shallower depth would satisfy the temperature issue. We know that the ocean was once extremely hot--perhaps 100 degrees F or more. High ocean temperatures would caused massive evaporation, leading to freezing at the poles and the great Ice Age. The four rivers of the Garden of Eden came from a subterranean source, so it's likely that the reservoirs were arranged in a complexity that is not understood and very difficult to model accurately. A large number of configurations are possible, however. Dr. Brown is likely just scratching the suface.
5. I have read in secular journals about discoveres of very deep subterranean water. The stronger evidence is from volcanoes, which release mostly water vapor. Water is a requirement for volcanic activity--the superheated steam is what powers the eruption.

 

[True_Blue]

You paradigms never take in all the available data; how about including erosion rate, eruption rates etc.

And what’s all this nonsense about violating the second law of thermodynamics, for a start the Earth is not an isolated system, in fact I do not know of an isolated system. Also plate tectonics is powered by the stored energy for stars, i.e. radioactive decay of heavy elements produces in super nova explosions not some imaginary magical mystical event 3000 years ago.

As for hot spot theory, it's true not all agree, but no one is advocating any hypothesis or theory that would support YECs world paradigm

Ok...precisely how would you link an exogenous power source to plate tectonics? I'm pretty sure neither the sun or any other star provides materially sufficient energy for plate techtonics, any more than sunlight provides a source of energy for internal combustion engines. For all practical purposes, the interior of the earth is a closed system, and any eruptions to the surface will diminish with time.

 

[pgp_protector]

Ok...precisely how would you link an exogenous power source to plate tectonics? I'm pretty sure neither the sun or any other star provides materially sufficient energy for plate techtonics, any more than sunlight provides a source of energy for internal combustion engines. For all practical purposes, the interior of the earth is a closed system, and any eruptions to the surface will diminish with time.

 

[True_Blue]

hyrdroplate theory is garbonzobeans! lol

I mean, you think water is supporting the earth's plates like a big water bed? Thats simply impossible; considering how geologists have been digging through the earth for a while now, and no, theres no proof a big water-bed supports the earth's plates. I'm sorry; but the very idea is so ridiculous a ten year old might be able to debunk it.

Also, did you read the debunking? Did you understand it Blu? What did you not understand?

K, the Bible says, "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights." The Bible itself says there is nothing left of the water to find, because the water now comprises the oceans. I tend to think that most of the residual water fuels massive volcanic eruptions during and after the flood. Think of it as a nuclear bomb--once the bomb detonates, there is nothing left of the bomb to find. The speed limit for earthquakes is about 6,700 mph, so the entire crust of the earth certainly could have ruptured in less than a day, per this Bible verse. Given the reality on the ground, the Brown and the Bible's explanation seems intuitive to me. The water probably exited through the mid-ocean ridges: http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/baseball.html

 

[True_Blue]

The only problem with this wonderful evidence is that it totally ignores erosion. You know, if an island has been beaten by winds and rains and those big waves in the middle of the ocean for millions of years it's kinda reasonable that it got smaller than a young island still being fed by the hot spot or just detached from it.

I wouldn't have thought True Blue would ever ignore a destructive force

As I've said above, it wouldn't. Why? How does a local increase in volcanic activity violate the (real) second law? Do all volcanic eruptions violate it? New volcanoes?

Show me one scientific theory that's universally recognised as true

In the context of a catastrophic paradigm, which is now universally recognized as truth (though the source of the catastrophe is disputed--Flood, asteroid, etc), despite the fact that evolution was decades late to the party, it's difficult to estimate the age of the earth based on present-day erosion. Noah's Flood caused vastly greater erosion rates than we know of today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophism: "The dominant paradigm of geology has been uniformitarianism (also sometimes described as gradualism), but recently a more inclusive and integrated view of geologic events has developed resulting in a gradual change in the scientific consensus, reflecting acceptance of some catastrophic events."

If you drop a rock in the center of a still pool, the ripples rebounding from the edge are much smaller than the first waves generated by the rock. Modern volcanic activity is an insignificant second-order effect, like those secondary ripples. I believe volcanic activity and earthquake frequency has been decaying asymptotically toward zero over time. "New" volcanoes are akin to secondary explosions.

 

[mpok1519]

The Bible says Noah and his Ark floated around for forty days and nights; yes, but this is not scientific evidence of your claims on hydroplate theory.

It was a regional flood; not a global one, btw. And this isn't a theological debate about the meaning of scripture and how it applies to plate tectonics.

Your inductive reasoning is, strange, and I don't think your theories are too credible; but they are creative. =)

 

[us38]

I'm pretty sure neither the sun or any other star provides materially sufficient energy for plate techtonics, any more than sunlight provides a source of energy for internal combustion engines.

You seem to be forgetting that the earth has a very radioactive core. That radiation provides all the energy required for plate tectonics.

For all practical purposes, the interior of the earth is a closed system, and any eruptions to the surface will diminish with time.

Interior of the earth is very far from a closed system. Lava flows are going to have pretty high entropy, and heat constantly radiates through the crust.