• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Another Setterfieldism From That Other Neighboring Forum

Status
Not open for further replies.

birdan

Regular Member
Jan 20, 2006
443
45
72
✟23,331.00
Faith
Seeker
Pulled from the forbidden forum:
The Continents Divide

On earth several asteroid impacts closed the Mesozoic Era, about 65 million atomic years ago at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary. The dinosaurs would have been decimated. Wild fires destroyed much vegetation. The layer of iridium from asteroid impacts and soot from the wild fires is virtually global. This was the time of Peleg in the fifth generation after the Flood (Luke 3:35-36) when the continents were divided (Genesis 10:25). When the light-speed correction is applied, the atomic date for this event closely approximates to 3025 BC. The basaltic Deccan Traps in India, whose origin may have been either through an igneous event or an impact related mantle magma plume, were also outpoured at the time of this disaster [41]. If an impact origin for the Deccan Traps is discounted, the major impact at this time was in the Yucatan (near the mid-Atlantic rift) leaving a crater at least 150 km wide. Other impacts at this time also formed the Manson, Karn, Kamensk and Gusev craters [42]. The significant Lunar crater Tycho also dates from the late Cretaceous [43]. It is thus possible that this event was contemporaneous with the formation of these other craters, as the light-speed correction brings it very close to the BC date for Peleg on the LXX chronology.

It is interesting to note that when rocks and metals melt, their volume increases by 10%. When this is applied to the entire earth, there would result an increase in circumference of about 18%. At the time of Peleg's life, the interior of the earth would have become entirely molten, and the pressure being exerted on the outer crust incredible. The aforementioned asteroid bombardment is all it would have taken for the pressure to start being released from the interior and the earth's crust to begin 'unzipping.' We can see where this occurred primarily along the Atlantic Rift, which is still seeping magma. The maximum width of the Atlantic is about 4700 miles (near the equator), which represents an 18% expansion of its original circumference [57].

The Beginnings of the Cenozoic Era

Tectonic plate movement and rifting would have been enhanced by very low mantle/asthenosphere viscosities, which were themselves due to peak temperatures, significant water content, and high, but rapidly dropping, light-speed values. Separating continents may have generated a series of tsunamis. Mountains were also being upthrust by recently activated tectonic forces. This might also imply chronic earthquake activity and persistent volcanism. The impacts as well as the changing distribution of masses both on and in the earth may have increased the axis tilt to something of the order of 28 degrees or more according to the observational data [44].

The high axis tilt, mountain building and volcanism would all contribute to annual extremes of climate. The mammals with their stable body temperatures were most able to cope with these conditions. Among the plants, the angiosperms became predominant with their seasonal flowering and fruit bearing. These plants include most deciduous trees, which are more able to withstand seasonal extremes. Continental drift would have resulted in isolated populations, which in turn would have brought about localised dominances. As the Era progressed, most giant forms would have died out due to new extremes of climate. From a study of oxygen isotope ratios in shells from the Atlantic, we know that ocean temperatures dropped progressively from the close of the Mesozoic throughout the Cenozoic Era that followed [45]. Once surface temperatures dropped below freezing, the initial stage of the ice-age began.
From the wonderful Mr. Setterfield.

http://www.setterfield.org/000docs/earlyhist.html#jobab
All the items that I have bolded in the above are sources of tremendous amounts of heat. Any one of them occurring rapidly (including radioactive decay in a 'hyper light speed' scenario) would turn the earth to a molten blob. "New extremes of climate" indeed!

Since all this supposedly happened 'in the time of Peleg', was Peleg wearing asbestos insoles in his Nikes? Or does Setterfield have some sort of 'thermodynamic corrections' similar to his 'light speed corrections'?
 

busterdog

Senior Veteran
Jun 20, 2006
3,359
183
Visit site
✟26,929.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Pulled from the forbidden forum:
All the items that I have bolded in the above are sources of tremendous amounts of heat. Any one of them occurring rapidly (including radioactive decay in a 'hyper light speed' scenario) would turn the earth to a molten blob. "New extremes of climate" indeed!

Since all this supposedly happened 'in the time of Peleg', was Peleg wearing asbestos insoles in his Nikes? Or does Setterfield have some sort of 'thermodynamic corrections' similar to his 'light speed corrections'?

Guess you will have to go to his website for the answer.
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
38
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟33,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
Guess you will have to go to his website for the answer.

Actually, no, the website says absolutely nothing about how all the heat would have been radiated away from Earth in time to prevent a meltdown.

Also, this:
It is interesting to note that when rocks and metals melt, their volume increases by 10%. When this is applied to the entire earth, there would result an increase in circumference of about 18%.
is an obvious mathematical mistake. When the volume of a sphere increases by 10%, its radius increases by 3%, and so does its circumference. Where did the 18% figure come from?
 
Upvote 0

birdan

Regular Member
Jan 20, 2006
443
45
72
✟23,331.00
Faith
Seeker
Guess you will have to go to his website for the answer.
I scanned his website for the word "heat" and came up with 10 articles, none of which address the above heat problem. One of his articles did say that, because of the decreasing speed of light, most of the universe's history occurred in the first 1656 years of creation. That would seem to only exacerbate the heat problem, since by the time of Noah's flood, the speed of light was about what it is today. So according to his website, we end up with billions of years of massive heat-producing history on earth occurring in less than 2,000 years, and we're back to a molten earth. And he's quite clear that all those heat events occurred, as bolded in the quote in the opening post.

Does he also think an ice age occurred immediately following those 1656 years of massive heat production?

If you know of something on his website that I missed, feel free to share it.
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think polonium halos are worth looking at in this context. According to the YEC argument, the decay of radioactive polonium atoms behaved exactly the same way in the past as it does now, each decay produced the same energy, the alpha particles released by the decay able to penetrate the same distance through the surrounding rock and caused the same damage and melting in rock as it does now.

Only you would have had billions of years worth of these decays, and the decays of all the othere radioactive isotopes, in a much shorter period.
mad0233.gif
 
Upvote 0

busterdog

Senior Veteran
Jun 20, 2006
3,359
183
Visit site
✟26,929.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Actually, no, the website says absolutely nothing about how all the heat would have been radiated away from Earth in time to prevent a meltdown.

Also, this:
It is interesting to note that when rocks and metals melt, their volume increases by 10%. When this is applied to the entire earth, there would result an increase in circumference of about 18%.
is an obvious mathematical mistake. When the volume of a sphere increases by 10%, its radius increases by 3%, and so does its circumference. Where did the 18% figure come from?

You just didn't find it.
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
38
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟33,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
You just didn't find it.

A search on Setterfield.org for both "circumference 18" and "circumference increase" both returned the original quote but did not return any theoretical justification for it. I'm sorry, but I can't find something that Setterfield hasn't put online. (If, indeed, he has any justification for the number at all.)
 
Upvote 0

Deamiter

I just follow Christ.
Nov 10, 2003
5,226
347
Visit site
✟32,525.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Actually, no, the website says absolutely nothing about how all the heat would have been radiated away from Earth in time to prevent a meltdown.

Also, this:
It is interesting to note that when rocks and metals melt, their volume increases by 10%. When this is applied to the entire earth, there would result an increase in circumference of about 18%.
is an obvious mathematical mistake. When the volume of a sphere increases by 10%, its radius increases by 3%, and so does its circumference. Where did the 18% figure come from?
Indeed -- of course, my first thought was that he'd confused circumference with surface area... but it turns out that a 10% increase in volume translates to roughly 6.5% increase in surface area.

Sometimes I wonder why people take this guy seriously. I too would be very interested to see him actually defend his claim that all these processes could happen without cooking everything on Earth. This guy's got some interesting ideas (something I love) but the fact that he doesn't take the time to develop his theories enough to justify the conclusions suggests that he's not really interested in the theory, just very heavily invested in the conclusions.
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
38
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟33,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
Indeed -- of course, my first thought was that he'd confused circumference with surface area... but it turns out that a 10% increase in volume translates to roughly 6.5% increase in surface area.

Indeed. I'm actually racking my brain to try to figure out how he could have made such a mistake. (The intellectual taxonomy of mistakes can be very interesting, no?)

A 10% increase in radius (100% -> 110%) corresponds to:
10% increase in circumference (linear wrt radius)
21% increase in surface area (quadratic wrt radius)
33.1% increase in volume (cubic wrt radius)

A 10% increase in surface area corresponds to:
4.88% increase in radius and circumference
15.4% increase in volume

An 11% increase in surface area (90% -> 100%) corresponds to:
5.41% increase in radius and circumference
17.1% increase in volume

A 10% increase in volume corresponds to:
3.23% increase in radius and circumference
6.56% increase in surface area.

Of all the possible transformations, the one in italics is the only one that's remotely close to Setterfield's 18% figure. In fact, Baugh has made similar claims about the earth changing size by about 10%, so I wouldn't be surprised if he makes similar errors as well. In any case, I think I've actually seen the 18% mistake mentioned elsewhere too. I wonder.

Sometimes I wonder why people take this guy seriously. I too would be very interested to see him actually defend his claim that all these processes could happen without cooking everything on Earth. This guy's got some interesting ideas (something I love) but the fact that he doesn't take the time to develop his theories enough to justify the conclusions suggests that he's not really interested in the theory, just very heavily invested in the conclusions.

To be fair, I'd really like to get a real statistician to take the bother to look at Montgomery's statistical analysis of speed-of-light measurements. In fact, in an ideal world, I would learn enough statistics to look closely at it myself - time does not permit, however.

Having said that, I agree with your sentiments. Have you been lurking around C&E recently? AV1611VET has just made a gem of an outburst: he defined kinds as something to do with being at the top of a taxon and having "maximum alleles", and then quite candidly admitted that he had no idea what "alleles" were in the first place! Worth a good laugh. I have a feeling Setterfield is much the same, only with more polish and a dedicated website.
 
Upvote 0

birdan

Regular Member
Jan 20, 2006
443
45
72
✟23,331.00
Faith
Seeker
Guess you will have to go to his website for the answer.

...

You just didn't find it.
I think I've been through all of Setterfield's website, and I can't find an answer to my questions there. You have implied the answers are on his website, so since I can't find them, can you please tell be where to look to answer the questions from my opening post?

Since I can't find any relevant material on his website, my conclusion is that he has neglected this problem in his suppositions, and therefore his suppositions are fatally flawed. I'm more than willing to stand corrected if you'll point out the pertinent material on his website.
 
Upvote 0

Deamiter

I just follow Christ.
Nov 10, 2003
5,226
347
Visit site
✟32,525.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The main reason is I don't feel like I am part of your group.
So you're not interested in sharing with another group?

I know you aren't interested in questioning anything Setterfield says, but when you imply that he's answered rather serious questions but nobody can FIND these answers, doesn't it make you think that perhaps Setterfield has been unable or unwilling to fully develop his hypotheses in the face of intelligent criticism?
 
  • Like
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
This guy's got some interesting ideas (something I love) but the fact that he doesn't take the time to develop his theories enough to justify the conclusions .

I would say if a person could put some existed knowledge together to make such a model, it IS a contribution. To polish and to verify the model is, in fact, not his job. For an oversized and loosely constructed model like this, any one could single out any statement from the model and start to redicule it very easily. However, this doing would totally miss the point. The correct way to read it is not to find what's wrong with it (that is easy), but to see what could be right in it.

For example, the conventional model says the earth was totally molten due to meteo bombardment at her early stage. However, this model suggests a possibility that the interior could become overheated, but the surface remained relatively cool. To me, this is a new idea and I am not ready to say that it is not possible. And, if this concept is right, then the idea of accelerated plate movement could also be justified.
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
38
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟33,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
I would say if a person could put some existed knowledge together to make such a model, it IS a contribution. To polish and to verify the model is, in fact, not his job. For an oversized and loosely constructed model like this, any one could single out any statement from the model and start to redicule it very easily. However, this doing would totally miss the point. The correct way to read it is not to find what's wrong with it (that is easy), but to see what could be right in it.

For example, the conventional model says the earth was totally molten due to meteo bombardment at her early stage. However, this model suggests a possibility that the interior could become overheated, but the surface remained relatively cool. To me, this is a new idea and I am not ready to say that it is not possible. And, if this concept is right, then the idea of accelerated plate movement could also be justified.

I disagree - what's the point of leaving the fundamental statements of your personal theories to others? I do agree that a lot of times, theories are extended beyond their original intention by their original discoverers - however, this does not shift the onus off the discoverer or his/her collaborators to ensure that the basic theory is solid.

For example, read Einstein's papers on special relativity. It's true that others such as Minkowski did a lot to extend Einstein's theory, so that his original papers were in a sense incomplete - but there was no part of them that was wrong. Einstein could have thrown off his two postulates - the equivalence of all inertial frames and the constancy of the speed of light in vacuum in them - and left it to someone else to bother to work out the details. As it is, not only did he prove that there were no fundamental inconsistencies between his postulates and physical reality, he went on to extend it, not only coming up with the time dilation and length contraction that everybody (thinks they) knows, but working at extending it even to Maxwell's laws, deriving equations for how light would bounce off a moving mirror, etc. etc. He wasn't lazy about showing that his theories were consistent with the real world.

As it is, the more you care about a theory, the more you subject it to strenuous investigation - because every argument that could falsify it, but doesn't, is an argument that instead validifies it. I restate that: you can only support a scientific theory's truth by running the risk of proving it false. And you can only do that by extending the theory, extending it until it reaches its breaking point - at which you consolidate your winnings so far, summarize where your theory holds and where it doesn't, and look for something better to take over. I reiterate: you can only bring the best out of your theory by stretching it to its limit and seeing where it fails. As such, the people who truly care about Setterfield's theories are the ones who have been stretching them - and so far they've found that the theories really can't accommodate much stretch at all before breaking altogether, suggesting that those theories really aren't worth much time at all.

But if Setterfield truly cared about his theories he'd be the one stretching them to breaking point. As it is, since he hasn't, I can only presume that his theories are just side-lines to ulterior motives.
 
Upvote 0

birdan

Regular Member
Jan 20, 2006
443
45
72
✟23,331.00
Faith
Seeker
I would say if a person could put some existed knowledge together to make such a model, it IS a contribution. To polish and to verify the model is, in fact, not his job. For an oversized and loosely constructed model like this, any one could single out any statement from the model and start to redicule it very easily. However, this doing would totally miss the point. The correct way to read it is not to find what's wrong with it (that is easy), but to see what could be right in it.

For example, the conventional model says the earth was totally molten due to meteo bombardment at her early stage. However, this model suggests a possibility that the interior could become overheated, but the surface remained relatively cool. To me, this is a new idea and I am not ready to say that it is not possible. And, if this concept is right, then the idea of accelerated plate movement could also be justified.
I'm sorry, but I don't see my criticism as ridiculing a single statement. The opening post shows that he postulates that large thermal processes were the mechanisms for his claimed results, but then has (apparently) absolutely nothing to say about the heat generated from these large thermal processes that are the basis of his suppositions. It's not a minor point, it's a major flaw or oversight in his basic premise.
 
Upvote 0

busterdog

Senior Veteran
Jun 20, 2006
3,359
183
Visit site
✟26,929.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I would say if a person could put some existed knowledge together to make such a model, it IS a contribution. To polish and to verify the model is, in fact, not his job. For an oversized and loosely constructed model like this, any one could single out any statement from the model and start to redicule it very easily. However, this doing would totally miss the point. The correct way to read it is not to find what's wrong with it (that is easy), but to see what could be right in it.

.

Eck freeking zactly.

But, as you imply, if you are not a member of the club, you are not allowed to theorize. You are dismissed.

Its all well and good to propose a theory with emorous problems if it is conventional. Otherwise, forget it.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.