Earth May Have Been A Waterworld

Subduction Zone · Mar 13, 2020

jamesbond007 said:
There has been a few pages written and I can't address them all, but allow me to summarize my criticism of what I call Darwin's timeline. It's called "Important events in the history of life" on my evolution source from UC Berkeley.

View attachment 273117

Above is the graph.

Text
Important events in the history of life

My criticism for evolution is that there is no overall detailed nor general explanation for what we observe on Earth with its topography and how everything came to be. One is given life already existing in the form of a simple cell. We also have an Earth that looks like Saturn now. How can it be a waterworld if it was just hit by comets and ice on them? We would have giant craters that show as space object hit and that it contained water. Instead, we have the evidence of oxygen-18 in our surface rocks now. What evolution has is a lot of disjointed stories that do not add up. One can't observe millions of years. It is difficult just to explain 3500 years ago a global flood occurred. The other thing that strikes me as weird is today's scientist won't consider a global flood happened and billions of people of advanced civilization were alive and buried. They won't consider they are wrong in the radioisotope timeline assumptions. Thus, we get the false science today. The solution to this is allow creation scientists to participate in peer reviews again. They we may get a wider range of theories and argument for what is the best one at the scientists level instead of that of mostly layman on forums such as this.

Darwin had no timeline. He had no way to date when events occurred so he did not even try.

Perhaps you should retitle your claim, otherwise it just becomes an easily refutable strawman argument.

Jimmy D · Mar 13, 2020

I see someone’s had a drink tonight.

Jimmy D · Mar 13, 2020

jamesbond007 said:
Instead, we have the evidence of oxygen-18 in our surface rocks now. What evolution has is a lot of disjointed stories that do not add up.

Good to see that you accept the benefits of using isotopes to learn about the ancient past.

jamesbond007 said:
They won't consider they are wrong in the radioisotope timeline assumptions. Thus, we get the false science today

Ah.

jamesbond007 · Mar 13, 2020

Mitty said:
Nonsense!!!

Do you have any actual evidence to support your hypothesis and fantasies, given that the Himalayas were formed millions of years before Adam's grandmother was a girl and most of Noah's family were drowned in a local flood which was only 15 cubits high and had no effect on a nearby olive tree growing outside the flooded area?

I think I addressed the differences between young Earth and old Earth as differences in radiometric dating. It's not the methodology, but the assumptions made in doing it. One of my big criticisms of radioisotope dating is they only take those that fit a certain range of dates. If it is outside, then they do not invalidate the samples they are dating. They just toss the ones that are out of range out.

Thus, there is not millions of years, let alone billions, to debunk. I've already stated from the Bible theory that the global flood happened around 2458 BC. The Bible is a non-fiction and historical book, so I can base it on that. Furthermore, if you want to argue the evidence, which I see you do not have, then I just presented mine to you. It is observable. You should fall down on your knees and repent, but I think Satan's Antibible of evolution has smitten you in such a way that you cannot accept another's scientific argument. If your dates were true, then you would have the explanations. However, one can only make up different lies when their original lies do not hold water (pun intended) and they are caught. No one can have evidence from millions or billions or years ago. Even rocks decay and crumble over time. How can a fossil not decay? Decay is part of science. We also find soft tissue inside some of those fossils, too.

jamesbond007 · Mar 13, 2020

Jimmy D said:
Good to see that you accept the benefits of using isotopes to learn about the ancient past.

Not radioisotopes unless we have better assumptions. For example, you make claims a rock is a million or billion years old without batting an eye. It's in nature so thus it will experience weathering, chemical, and mechanical decay, and pressure. It's bound to decay. However, it's still here and much has its carbon inside.

Astrophile · Mar 13, 2020

jamesbond007 said:
Moreover. Just observe. What other planet, exoplanet, or moon has oceans covering 3/4 of their surface?

Jupiter's satellites Europa and Ganymede, and Saturn's satellite Enceladus, have ice crusts covering a global ocean that is about 100 km deep for Europa, up to 800 km for Ganymede, and 26-31 km deep for Enceladus. Both Europa and Enceladus have water plumes erupting through fissures in the outer ice shell. See Europa (moon) - Wikipedia, Ganymede (moon) - Wikipedia, and Enceladus - Wikipedia .

'Current technology cannot directly observe liquid surface water' on exoplanets - Ocean planet - Wikipedia . However, improvements in technology should soon make it possible either to detect oceans on exoplanets or to show that they do not exist.

Mitty · Mar 13, 2020

jamesbond007 said:
I think I addressed the differences between young Earth and old Earth as differences in radiometric dating. It's not the methodology, but the assumptions made in doing it. One of my big criticisms of radioisotope dating is they only take those that fit a certain range of dates. If it is outside, then they do not invalidate the samples they are dating. They just toss the ones that are out of range out.

Thus, there is not millions of years, let alone billions, to debunk. I've already stated from the Bible theory that the global flood happened around 2458 BC. The Bible is a non-fiction and historical book, so I can base it on that. Furthermore, if you want to argue the evidence, which I see you do not have, then I just presented mine to you. It is observable. You should fall down on your knees and repent, but I think Satan's Antibible of evolution has smitten you in such a way that you cannot accept another's scientific argument. If your dates were true, then you would have the explanations. However, one can only make up different lies when their original lies do not hold water (pun intended) and they are caught. No one can have evidence from millions or billions or years ago. Even rocks decay and crumble over time. How can a fossil not decay? Decay is part of science. We also find soft tissue inside some of those fossils, too.

Nonsense!!!

The unequivocal fact is that universe is obviously billions of years old, given that there are ~two trillion visible galaxies and the speed of light is ~300,000 km/sec.

And the bible does not say that the flood which drowned most of Noah's family was global, given that it was only 15 cubits high and drained away like every other similar flood before and since and didn't affect an olive tree happily growing outside the flooded area. Or don't you believe what the bible actually says and just make up your own imaginary fantasies?

Ophiolite · Mar 13, 2020

jamesbond007 said:
Not radioisotopes unless we have better assumptions. For example, you make claims a rock is a million or billion years old without batting an eye. It's in nature so thus it will experience weathering, chemical, and mechanical decay, and pressure. It's bound to decay. However, it's still here and much has its carbon inside.

Comment:
Members unfamiliar with dating via radioactive isotope and their daughter product proportions should note the following:

Carbon-14 dating is inapplicable much beyond 50,000 years, thus references to "carbon inside" and "a million or billion years old" are symptomatic of someone who has no understanding of the science.
Weathering, diagenesis, metamorphism, metasomatism, mechanical stresses all can influence the data, but how they influence the data has been meticulously determined through decades of dedicated research.
In science assumptions are part of the scientific process, but they are more accurately described as questions. "If X and Y are true, Z should be the consequence. So let's assume that's true and test to see if it is." So, assumptions are tested and rejected if they fail the test.

jamesbond007 · Mar 13, 2020

Astrophile said:
Jupiter's satellites Europa and Ganymede, and Saturn's satellite Enceladus, have ice crusts covering a global ocean that is about 100 km deep for Europa, up to 800 km for Ganymede, and 26-31 km deep for Enceladus. Both Europa and Enceladus have water plumes erupting through fissures in the outer ice shell. See Europa (moon) - Wikipedia, Ganymede (moon) - Wikipedia, and Enceladus - Wikipedia .

'Current technology cannot directly observe liquid surface water' on exoplanets - Ocean planet - Wikipedia . However, improvements in technology should soon make it possible either to detect oceans on exoplanets or to show that they do not exist.

Interesting. Do these plumes stay liquid or do they freeze? So far, what I have noticed is they're mostly ice, if not all ice. Even our moon's poles have ice. I suspect it's the fine tuning that we have to deal with to get it into liquid state. While I thought it was possible at one time, I don't think it's possible now -- terraforming. It would take the power of the sun to just defrost the moon's poles into liquid. In contrast, both of our poles are melting now at a healthy clip. Hundreds of gigatons of ice going into the seas.

jamesbond007 · Mar 13, 2020

Mitty said:
Nonsense!!!

The unequivocal fact is that universe is obviously billions of years old, given that there are ~two trillion visible galaxies and the speed of light is ~300,000 km/sec.

And the bible does not say that the flood which drowned most of Noah's family was global, given that it was only 15 cubits high and drained away like every other similar flood before and since and didn't affect an olive tree happily growing outside the flooded area. Or don't you believe what the bible actually says and just make up your own imaginary fantasies?

It can't be obvious. Even rock cannot last millions of years. The environment of weathering, chemical reaction, and mechanical reaction (pressure) will cause it to decay. Evos like Bill Nye think pressure will flatten rock, but it will cause it to crumble and decay. They're wrong and experiment shows this. Even if we look at the universe, we observe that suns collapse, black holes crash into each other, a whole galaxy could be there and then it's gone. Our observations show that the universe isn't steady, but constantly being destroyed and born at the same time. We see this regularly so it's not a steady state. Earth is not steady state. Moon is not steady state. Sun is not steady state.

Einstein noticed this, too, and thought that our Milky Way galaxy will continue to expand and then collapse. However, it's nice that this is not the case according to Einstein's calculations with the discovery of gravitational waves. I think the waves do cause the eventual collapse, but they are very slow in robbing the orbiting bodies of energy.

Subduction Zone · Mar 13, 2020

jamesbond007 said:
Not radioisotopes unless we have better assumptions. For example, you make claims a rock is a million or billion years old without batting an eye. It's in nature so thus it will experience weathering, chemical, and mechanical decay, and pressure. It's bound to decay. However, it's still here and much has its carbon inside.

Chemical reactions do not affect the nucleus. That has been tested countless times. The only example that I can find goes far past a mere chemical reaction. Rhenimum 187 that has been stripped of all electrons has a massively shortened half life. The only problem? That would not happen even in the core of the Sun. No one has found a way to shorten a halflife of an element anywhere near the surface of the Earth. What you call "assumptions" are merely examples of your ignorance of the topic.

Subduction Zone · Mar 13, 2020

jamesbond007 said:
It can't be obvious. Even rock cannot last millions of years. The environment of weathering, chemical reaction, and mechanical reaction (pressure) will cause it to decay. Evos like Bill Nye think pressure will flatten rock, but it will cause it to crumble and decay. They're wrong and experiment shows this. Even if we look at the universe, we observe that suns collapse, black holes crash into each other, a whole galaxy could be there and then it's gone. Our observations show that the universe isn't steady, but constantly being destroyed and born at the same time. We see this regularly so it's not a steady state. Earth is not steady state. Moon is not steady state. Sun is not steady state.

Einstein noticed this, too, and thought that our Milky Way galaxy will continue to expand and then collapse. However, it's nice that this is not the case according to Einstein's calculations with the discovery of gravitational waves. I think the waves do cause the eventual collapse, but they are very slow in robbing the orbiting bodies of energy.

Citation needed.

Mitty · Mar 13, 2020

jamesbond007 said:
It can't be obvious.

So what is is your evidence that the universe is not billions of years old, given that there are ~two trillion visible galaxies and the speed of light is ~300,000 km/sec in a vacuum?

Astrophile · Mar 13, 2020

jamesbond007 said:
Interesting. Do these plumes stay liquid or do they freeze? So far, what I have noticed is they're mostly ice, if not all ice. Even our moon's poles have ice. I suspect it's the fine tuning that we have to deal with to get it into liquid state. While I thought it was possible at one time, I don't think it's possible now -- terraforming. It would take the power of the sun to just defrost the moon's poles into liquid. In contrast, both of our poles are melting now at a healthy clip. Hundreds of gigatons of ice going into the seas.

The plumes from Europa and Enceladus freeze after they are ejected from the interior of the satellite; the plumes and jets from Enceladus are the main source of the particles of Saturn's E-ring. However, the important fact is that these satellites, as well as Ganymede, contain global oceans of liquid water beneath the outer shell of ice.

Of course there is no possibility of terraforming any of the satellites of the outer planets.

Astrophile · Mar 13, 2020

jamesbond007 said:
Evos like Bill Nye think pressure will flatten rock, but it will cause it to crumble and decay. They're wrong and experiment shows this.

It is geologists, not evolutionists, who think that pressure will flatten rock. In fact, at the high pressures and temperatures deep in the Earth's crust rocks will deform by folding and fracturing (as I have seen at many rock outcrops). Also, at these high temperatures and pressures, metamorphic rocks are formed as a result of re-crystallization of the pre-existing igneous or sedimentary rock.

jamesbond007 · Mar 13, 2020

Astrophile said:
It is geologists, not evolutionists, who think that pressure will flatten rock. In fact, at the high pressures and temperatures deep in the Earth's crust rocks will deform by folding and fracturing (as I have seen at many rock outcrops). Also, at these high temperatures and pressures, metamorphic rocks are formed as a result of re-crystallization of the pre-existing igneous or sedimentary rock.

Where's the evidence? Geology is one of the areas where evolution is highly emphasized. Fossils aren't found deep inside the Earth's crust. They won't be around for long there . It sounds like you're just using a straw man instead of discussing how rock crumbles and decays due to it being exposed to weather, time, chemicals, and just layer and surface pressure.

It's time to move on. Thanks.

Ophiolite · Mar 13, 2020

jamesbond007 said:
Where's the evidence? Geology is one of the areas where evolution is highly emphasized. Fossils aren't found deep inside the Earth's crust. They won't be around for long there . It sounds like you're just using a straw man instead of discussing how rock crumbles and decays due to it being exposed to weather, time, chemicals, and just layer and surface pressure.

It's time to move on. Thanks.

Your ignorance of geology is offensive to me. Please stop posting ill-informed nonsense.
You have displayed zero understanding and massive misrepresentation of mineralogy, geomorphology, rock mechanics, tectonics, igneous petrology, sedimentation, stratigraphy, palaeontology, isostasy/exhumation, geochemistry, metamorphism and just about every other relevant branch of Earth science. Empty denials that ignore two centuries or more of careful, professional examination of the evidence are just that: empty.

I will deign to address your assertion that "Fossils aren't found deep inside the Earth's crust." What do you define (in miles, or kilometres) as deep?

Mitty · Mar 13, 2020

jamesbond007 said:
It's time to move on. Thanks.

But before you do, perhaps you can tell us if you believe that the universe was created about 6000 years ago as hypothesized from the creation fantasies in Genesis 1 and the genealogy in Luke 3. If so, how did your god manage to fit two trillion visible galaxies within 6000 light years from Earth? And do you have any evidence that the average distance between stars is therefore less than four billion kilometres, given that Neptune is about 4.5 billion kilometres from Earth?

Subduction Zone · Mar 13, 2020

jamesbond007 said:
Where's the evidence? Geology is one of the areas where evolution is highly emphasized. Fossils aren't found deep inside the Earth's crust. They won't be around for long there . It sounds like you're just using a straw man instead of discussing how rock crumbles and decays due to it being exposed to weather, time, chemicals, and just layer and surface pressure.

It's time to move on. Thanks.

Oh my! Such arrogance and ignorance. There are plenty of fossils found in folded rock. Not only that, but brittle fossils deform plactically quite often. In fact structural geologists call them "strain markers". They are used to analyze the strength and direction of the forces that folded the rocks.

Here is a deformed trilobite:

I was going to link some sites, but they are in pdf form and my tablet does not deal with them very well. But I could do so later.

Jimmy D · Mar 14, 2020

jamesbond007 said:
Not radioisotopes unless we have better assumptions. For example, you make claims a rock is a million or billion years old without batting an eye

I made no claims about geology. I merely noted your hypocrisy.

jamesbond007 said:
. It's in nature so thus it will experience weathering, chemical, and mechanical decay, and pressure. It's bound to decay. However, it's still here and much has its carbon inside

What do you mean “still has carbon inside”? What’s that got to do with what I said?

Earth May Have Been A Waterworld

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Active Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Active Member

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Active Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads