ICR Acts and Facts

[nolidad]

It really doesnt.

The ToE is very well understod (by those who bother to learn the facts).

YEC is not a valid theory.

Yeah yeah yeah- thus sayeth the evolutionists!

 

[VirOptimus]

typical argument- deflect and divert and then accuse.

No facts just accusations.

YTou said I lied- now put up or be labelled a phony who prefers ad-hominems than reality.

Everyone can read your posts you know, I really dont care what you label me as.

 

[VirOptimus]

Yeah yeah yeah- thus sayeth the evolutionists!

No, reality.

 

[pitabread]

You are just too embarrassed to admit that this describes evolution succinctly and accurately in a summation!

I already explained why it doesn't.

 

[nolidad]

That article doesn't have anything to do with the nuclear decay constants.

Of course it does! If you can alter the ratio of parent/daughter elements- you have altered the theorized age of the rock based on decay constants.

 

[nolidad]

Everyone can read your posts you know, I really dont care what you label me as.

so another dodge because you can't find one lie I made! IOW you have slandered me, hurled an ad-hominem and made an accusation you can't back up with any evidence! Ok then- nice talking with ya!

 

[Speedwell]

so another dodge because you can't find one lie I made! IOW you have slandered me, hurled an ad-hominem and made an accusation you can't back up with any evidence! Ok then- nice talking with ya!

So what articles in TalkOrigins are "hate filled?"

 

[nolidad]

I already explained why it doesn't.

Take a look at the tree f life all evolutionists love to refer to! I know you are not so dense that you do not understand what "zoo" in that cutesy little phrase means! Or maybe I have given you far too much credit!

 

[VirOptimus]

so another dodge because you can't find one lie I made! IOW you have slandered me, hurled an ad-hominem and made an accusation you can't back up with any evidence! Ok then- nice talking with ya!

Maybe you can threaten me with eternal torment again?

 

[Ophiolite]

!. The waters kept rising for 150 days!

This is ambiguous. Do you mean he is wrong in stating 150 days, if so what is your justification for that assertion?

2. I can link you many flood geologists that speak of Mt. St. Helens and how it altered many things. I don't have one.

Again, ambiguous. You say you can link, then you say you can't. Either way, that is irrelevant since the bulk of the research cited by the author post-dates such studies.

3. No . I just don't know of any. I have not read every article form every flood geologist sao I cannot say it never happened.

Well, you just changed your story. In your prior statement you declared there no AIG, or ICR geologists had ever said so. It was an absolute statement. Now you have qualified it. Does this mean I should consider absolute statements from you as unreliable.
Please note, this is not an attempt to goad you, but if you are careless in your posts then it is difficult to see how I, or anyone else, can take you seriously. I take care when I post to ensure that my statements are as accurate as I can make them. I do this out of respect for myself and for my readers. I would appreciate it if I could expect the same from you.

 

[pitabread]

Take a look at the tree f life all evolutionists love to refer to! I know you are not so dense that you do not understand what "zoo" in that cutesy little phrase means! Or maybe I have given you far too much credit!

Like I said, it's a bumper sticker slogan.

 

[46AND2]

Of course it does! If you can alter the ratio of parent/daughter elements- you have altered the theorized age of the rock based on decay constants.

Your comment said that nuclear decay constants were garbage. The source you cited did not back that statement up. To say that nuclear decay constants are peripherally involved with the topic of discussion in the paper does NOT mean that the paper talks ABOUT decay constants.

 

[Astrophile]

And here is a quote from another:

This water, which is bound up in rock, could indicate the largest water reservoir on the planet. It is believed that plate tectonics cycle the water in and out, and the water affects the partial melting of rock in the mantle.

"Geological processes on the Earth's surface, such as earthquakes or erupting volcanoes, are an expression of what is going on inside the Earth, out of our sight," said Jacobsen in a press release. "I think we are finally seeing evidence for a whole-Earth water cycle, which may help explain the vast amount of liquid water on the surface of our habitable planet. Scientists have been looking for this missing deep water for decades.”

"It is likely the largest reservoir of water on the planet, and could be the source of the oceans' liquid. The study was published in the journal Science."

Hey I didn't alter the titles or the words! I just posted the articles! Take it up with the people on your side of the evolutionary aisle!

Your press release and your link - Dehydration melting at the top of the lower mantle - appear to confirm what I have already said, that the transition zone of the Earth's mantle (at depths of 410 to 660 km) contains water in chemical combination with the mineral ringwoodite.

As I now understand it, when transition zone material is transported downwards into the lower mantle (>660 km deep), dehydration of the ringwoodite leads to partial melting of the lower mantle, and the water is therefore trapped in the ringwoodite of the transition zone and the partial melt (magma) at the top of the lower mantle.

In experiments, the transition of hydrous ringwoodite to perovskite and (Mg,Fe)O produces intergranular melt. Detections of abrupt decreases in seismic velocity where downwelling mantle is inferred are consistent with partial melt below 660 kilometers.

Your own link says that dehydration of hydrous ringwoodite causes partial melting of the rocks of the lower mantle; it does not say anything about an enormous subterranean ocean.

These findings are of great interest for an understanding of a whole-Earth water cycle and of the petrology and dynamics of the mantle, but they do not give any support to a belief in a global flood.

 

[nolidad]

Your own link says that dehydration of hydrous ringwoodite causes partial melting of the rocks of the lower mantle; it does not say anything about an enormous subterranean ocean.

These findings are of great interest for an understanding of a whole-Earth water cycle and of the petrology and dynamics of the mantle, but they do not give any support to a belief in a global flood.

Well the articles from those evolutionary geologists and physicists said this find could redo sciences understanding of how the surface oceans formed!

Well they also said that subduction processes could have drawn down vast quantities of water that became trapped in ringwoodite.

"The study augments another, by a Canadian-led team, that discovered water deep within Earth hydrous minerals that were pushed to the surface by volcanoes.

Jacobsen and Schmandt believe that plate tectonics may be responsible for driving water so far down into the Earth"

.“The vast amount of water locked inside rocks of this deep region of the mantle will certainly force us to think harder about how it ever got there, or perhaps how it could have always been there since solidification of the mantle,” says Steven Jacobsen of Northwestern University in Illinois, who wasn’t connected with the new research. “It’s a key question about the evolution of the Earth, which extends to extrasolar planets as well.”

"Scientists scanning the deep interior of Earth have found evidence of a vast water reservoir beneath eastern Asia that is at least the volume of the Arctic Ocean.

The discovery marks the first time such a large body of water has found in the planet's deep mantle. [The World's Biggest Oceans and Seas]

The finding, made by Michael Wysession, a seismologist at Washington University in St. Louis, and his former graduate student Jesse Lawrence, now at the University of California, San Diego, will be detailed in a forthcoming monograph to be published by the American Geophysical Union."


See you can yell at me all you want, but these quotes are from the articles I linked that are from believers in evolutionism! If you don't like the way they write or are mad at their misrepresentations- take it up with them. these are "peer reviewed" and published in what you guys call "acceptable" science journals.

And it just goes to show that there was and is massive subterranean waters that were available so that when the fountains of teh great deep broke up- as god declared, there was water!

 

[nolidad]

Your comment said that nuclear decay constants were garbage. The source you cited did not back that statement up. To say that nuclear decay constants are peripherally involved with the topic of discussion in the paper does NOT mean that the paper talks ABOUT decay constants.

Well then let me give less ambiguous cites then:

Radioactive decay rates are not constant

Radioactive Decay Rates May Not Be Constant After All

Half-life heresy: Accelerating radioactive decay

A Mechanism for Accelerated Radioactive Decay - Creation Research Society (this one is above my pay grade)

Accelerated Radioactive Decay

there are many more!

 

[nolidad]

Again, ambiguous. You say you can link, then you say you can't. Either way, that is irrelevant since the bulk of the research cited by the author post-dates such studies.

Genesis 7:

17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.

18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.

19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

Here prevailed means to continue- and in context means to rise!

 

[Speedwell]

Well the articles from those evolutionary geologists and physicists said this find could redo sciences understanding of how the surface oceans formed!

Well they also said that subduction processes could have drawn down vast quantities of water that became trapped in ringwoodite.

"The study augments another, by a Canadian-led team, that discovered water deep within Earth hydrous minerals that were pushed to the surface by volcanoes.

Jacobsen and Schmandt believe that plate tectonics may be responsible for driving water so far down into the Earth"

.“The vast amount of water locked inside rocks of this deep region of the mantle will certainly force us to think harder about how it ever got there, or perhaps how it could have always been there since solidification of the mantle,” says Steven Jacobsen of Northwestern University in Illinois, who wasn’t connected with the new research. “It’s a key question about the evolution of the Earth, which extends to extrasolar planets as well.”

"Scientists scanning the deep interior of Earth have found evidence of a vast water reservoir beneath eastern Asia that is at least the volume of the Arctic Ocean.

The discovery marks the first time such a large body of water has found in the planet's deep mantle. [The World's Biggest Oceans and Seas]

The finding, made by Michael Wysession, a seismologist at Washington University in St. Louis, and his former graduate student Jesse Lawrence, now at the University of California, San Diego, will be detailed in a forthcoming monograph to be published by the American Geophysical Union."


See you can yell at me all you want, but these quotes are from the articles I linked that are from believers in evolutionism! If you don't like the way they write or are mad at their misrepresentations- take it up with them. these are "peer reviewed" and published in what you guys call "acceptable" science journals.

No, we pretty much agree with everything in the articles.

And it just goes to show that there was and is massive subterranean waters that were available so that when the fountains of teh great deep broke up- as god declared, there was water!

That's the conclusion which the articles do not support.

BTW, when are you going to tell us which TalkOrigins articles are "hate-filled?"

 

[Astrophile]

Well the articles from those evolutionary geologists and physicists said this find could redo sciences understanding of how the surface oceans formed!

Well they also said that subduction processes could have drawn down vast quantities of water that became trapped in ringwoodite.

"The study augments another, by a Canadian-led team, that discovered water deep within Earth hydrous minerals that were pushed to the surface by volcanoes.

Jacobsen and Schmandt believe that plate tectonics may be responsible for driving water so far down into the Earth"

.“The vast amount of water locked inside rocks of this deep region of the mantle will certainly force us to think harder about how it ever got there, or perhaps how it could have always been there since solidification of the mantle,” says Steven Jacobsen of Northwestern University in Illinois, who wasn’t connected with the new research. “It’s a key question about the evolution of the Earth, which extends to extrasolar planets as well.”

"Scientists scanning the deep interior of Earth have found evidence of a vast water reservoir beneath eastern Asia that is at least the volume of the Arctic Ocean.

The discovery marks the first time such a large body of water has found in the planet's deep mantle. [The World's Biggest Oceans and Seas]

The finding, made by Michael Wysession, a seismologist at Washington University in St. Louis, and his former graduate student Jesse Lawrence, now at the University of California, San Diego, will be detailed in a forthcoming monograph to be published by the American Geophysical Union."


See you can yell at me all you want, but these quotes are from the articles I linked that are from believers in evolutionism! If you don't like the way they write or are mad at their misrepresentations- take it up with them. these are "peer reviewed" and published in what you guys call "acceptable" science journals.

And it just goes to show that there was and is massive subterranean waters that were available so that when the fountains of the great deep broke up- as god declared, there was water!

How many times do I have to explain that there are not deep liquid oceans in the Earth's mantle that can burst out at the Earth's surface; the 'water' in the Earth's mantle is in the form of hydroxyl ions that are chemically combined with silicate minerals. Your link - Are Oceans of Water Hiding Beneath Earth’s Surface? – Science World (which, by the way, is not a peer-reviewed publication) led me to a paper in Nature , Hydrous mantle transition zone indicated by ringwoodite included within diamond . The abstract of this paper makes the matter perfectly clear. It says,

the Earth's transition zone, at depths between 410 and 660 km, could be a major repository for water, owing to the ability of the higher-pressure polymorphs of olivine - wadsleyite and ringwoodite - to host enough water to comprise up to around 2.5 per cent of their weight. A hydrous transition zone may have a key role in terrestrial magmatism and plate tectonics

.

There you have it: the high-pressure polymorphs of the mineral olivine can incorporate up to around 2.5 percent of their own weight in water in chemical combination with the mineral, and the presence of these hydrous minerals 'may have a key role in magmatism and plate tectonics'. Note that the paper speaks of 'a hydrous transition zone' rather than of 'oceans of water', and it does not say that this hydrous transition zone may be a source of water for floods.

I am not yelling at you; I am merely trying to explain the geophysical facts. You would learn and understand more if, instead of quoting secondary sources like Science World, you were to click on the links to the original papers and read them.

 

[46AND2]

Well then let me give less ambiguous cites then:

Radioactive decay rates are not constant

Radioactive Decay Rates May Not Be Constant After All

Half-life heresy: Accelerating radioactive decay

A Mechanism for Accelerated Radioactive Decay - Creation Research Society (this one is above my pay grade)

Accelerated Radioactive Decay

there are many more!

But...I'm waiting for you to show how decay constants are "garbage." All you have shown here are minor fluctuations in short-lived isotopes (and therefore are species which are not even used in radiometric dating) and/or using non-natural mechanisms like lasers and near absolute zero temperatures; Noah would have had to REALLY bundle up under those conditions.

You're going to have to try harder than that.

 

[Ophiolite]

Genesis 7:

17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.

18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.

19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

Here prevailed means to continue- and in context means to rise!

Which completely fails to address the point in my post that "that is irrelevant since the bulk of the research cited by the author post-dates such studies" and passages from the Bible are irrelevant to the specific point under discussion.

I would appreciate it if you would stay on track. If you do not have an adequate answer, just say so. Don't waffle.

 

[nolidad]

Which completely fails to address the point in my post that "that is irrelevant since the bulk of the research cited by the author post-dates such studies" and passages from the Bible are irrelevant to the specific point under discussion.

I would appreciate it if you would stay on track. If you do not have an adequate answer, just say so. Don't waffle.

Well which track. Many rabbit trails were started and not all by me.

And as for the author of the video- not everyone had the advantage of spending all the time researching Mt. St. Helen's and its aftermaths.