Do YEC acknowledge tectonic plate movement?

[Assyrian]

So come on, let's start a new campaign, we can call it S.O.M.E. (Save Our Moon Everybody) I will even start the campaign off right by going to Lowe's and buying two of their big spools of steel cable, that will be about 250 feet, we will only need to buy 1,351,679,750 more feet of cable which is only 10,813,438 more spools of it, come on everyone, let's chip in and save the moon for our grandchildren!

No way. My kids would take one look and start climbing.

 

[Papias]

Well, I guess it's good that Juvi actually read the link I posted. In it, not only is the history of the moon's regression covered, but it is also discussed why the most advanced creationist descriptions of the regression of the moon ignore data that doesn't give them the answer they want. For instance, the article I posted in post #50 includes an example, that being DeYoung 1992.

Which is the one that Juvi just happens to then bring up in post #53.

Juvie wrote:

Let's use the simple calculation given by DeYoung 1992 to evaluate.

Juvi, did you happen to also read why Deyong '92 is wrong, from post #50? It's because he ignored over a decade of available data, made simplistic assumptions, and still thought his approach was meaningful.

From the article The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System:

....As Stacey pointed out (Stacey, 1977, pages 102-103) it makes more sense to assume that the oceanic tidal dissipation was smaller in the past, which would have the effect of making the calculation that of a minimum age, as opposed to the maximum age proposed by DeYoung. But, of course, we are comparing DeYoung (1992) with Stacey (1977), a gap of 15 years (it's nice to see that DeYoung, like Barnes, is keeping up with the tempo of current research). That gap includes Lambeck (1980) and Hansen (1982) (wherein it was demonstrated that a 4.5 billion years age was compatible). ... Hansen's (1980) results also directly contradict DeYoung, but come 12 years before. This observation does not inspire confidence in the value of DeYoung's one-equation model for the evolution of the lunar orbit. But, as made clear by Bills & Ray (1999), the constant of proportionality, which Stacey suggests is not constant, is in fact a ratio of factors that represent dissipation, and deformation. It is clear that neither of these can be constant, and once that is understood, we can see clearly that DeYoung simply did the wrong thing right, and curiously wound up with a correct form of the wrong answer.

Juvie wrote:

Of course it is wrong to assume earth and moon touch each other at the beginning. I don't know what would be a proper value of the original distance. But I assume 1/3 of the current distance is a possibility (not too hard to dig out some references on this). So, if considered a uniform rate of recession, then the "age" would be about 800 m.y. If we considered the initial recession rate was higher, then time would be even shorter.

OK, so you are arguing that the YEC, Biblically literal idea of a 6,000 year old earth is wrong because it doesn't match the data? 800,000,000 is a lot more than 6,000 - or at least it was the last time I checked. Wow - "even shorter" than 800,000,000 years. Gotta ways to go, it seems.

To assume a constant rate of recession is a conservative way of estimation. Any variation on recession rate is more likely to shorten the time needed.

Except that actual data - you know, what those scientists use - shows that the recession rate was slower, not faster, in the past. It does this through multiple lines of evidence, which matches calculations as well. These show an age consistent with the conclusion of practically all real geologists that the earth is 4.54 +/- 0.05 billion years old.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised to find a 6,000 year creationist arguing for a nearly 1 billion year earth and ignoring data to do so, but somehow, I still am.

Papias

 

[Assyrian]

You need to be careful here, Young Earth Creationists have always been very happy with calculations that give a maximum age of the earth, even a whole list of arguments that give completely different dates. It doesn't matter because it doesn't mean the earth is that age, it could be younger, and of course they know that it is younger. What it shows, from their pov, is that the earth can't be a old as science claims, therefore the science is wrong. As well as that Juv isn't actually a YEC, though he likes the title, he is very happy with the earth being old, as long as, for some seemingly arbitrary reason, it isn't as old as geology and radiometric dating show us.

No you are better off sticking to the tactic you used in the first part of the post, showing how the creationist claim totally ignores the little details that completely unravel their claim.

 

[Papias]

Assyrian -

Yep, that's all true. However, notice that when a real astrophysicist looked at Deyong's work, he pointed out that it gave a minimum, not maximum, age.

Yep, Juvie is a kinda-something-earth age creationist (KSEC?), who relies on some kind of time dilation to make the 6,000 year age both literally true, while somehow allowing billions of years of geologic process, in addition to having the human Noah exist in the cambrian with a real global flood. Go figure.

Papias

 

[juvenissun]

You need to be careful here, Young Earth Creationists have always been very happy with calculations that give a maximum age of the earth, even a whole list of arguments that give completely different dates. It doesn't matter because it doesn't mean the earth is that age, it could be younger, and of course they know that it is younger. What it shows, from their pov, is that the earth can't be a old as science claims, therefore the science is wrong. As well as that Juv isn't actually a YEC, though he likes the title, he is very happy with the earth being old, as long as, for some seemingly arbitrary reason, it isn't as old as geology and radiometric dating show us.

No you are better off sticking to the tactic you used in the first part of the post, showing how the creationist claim totally ignores the little details that completely unravel their claim.

I am not "happy" about it. The old age is something brought up by radiometric dating and need to be explained. To me, it is a good tool to arrange things into a sequence. And I do believe that the sequence indicated by various dating methods is probably true.

 

[Assyrian]

I am not "happy" about it. The old age is something brought up by radiometric dating and need to be explained. To me, it is a good tool to arrange things into a sequence. And I do believe that the sequence indicated by various dating methods is probably true.

One thing I have never understood is why would you want to explain the age brought up by radiometric dating? I can understand a young earth creationist because they think from scripture that the earth is only 6,000 years old or so. You accept that it is many orders of magnitude older, hundreds of millions of years old, if I remember correctly. But if you are going to accept the earth is old, and the sequence of geological periods we get, why not accept the age radiometric dating gives us too?

 

[juvenissun]

One thing I have never understood is why would you want to explain the age brought up by radiometric dating? I can understand a young earth creationist because they think from scripture that the earth is only 6,000 years old or so. You accept that it is many orders of magnitude older, hundreds of millions of years old, if I remember correctly. But if you are going to accept the earth is old, and the sequence of geological periods we get, why not accept the age radiometric dating gives us too?

I don't "believe" the millions of years of age, even it is given by viable methods of science. The first thing is that we only know very little of science. The second is that we will probably never know the nature of time. I don't like the 6000-year number because I think it is only another "apparent" age made by man. But I don't think the billions of years of age is true either, because it supports evolution (which is wrong) and it is simply too long to be reasonable. If fact, I don't care what the age of things are, as long as the time frame/sequence of their origin make sense.

All this understanding/confusion comes from the faith on that God's time is dramatically different from our time. The Scripture says that. And it makes perfect sense.

 

[juvenissun]

......

Except that actual data - you know, what those scientists use - shows that the recession rate was slower, not faster, in the past. It does this through multiple lines of evidence, which matches calculations as well. These show an age consistent with the conclusion of practically all real geologists that the earth is 4.54 +/- 0.05 billion years old.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised to find a 6,000 year creationist arguing for a nearly 1 billion year earth and ignoring data to do so, but somehow, I still am.

Papias

Could you cite me a reference on that?

 

[Assyrian]

I don't "believe" the millions of years of age, even it is given by viable methods of science. The first thing is that we only know very little of science. The second is that we will probably never know the nature of time. I don't like the 6000-year number because I think it is only another "apparent" age made by man. But I don't think the billions of years of age is true either, because it supports evolution (which is wrong) and it is simply too long to be reasonable. If fact, I don't care what the age of things are, as long as the time frame/sequence of their origin make sense.

All this understanding/confusion comes from the faith on that God's time is dramatically different from our time. The Scripture says that. And it makes perfect sense.

See the flaw in your reasoning there?

 

[juvenissun]

See the flaw in your reasoning there?

I know. It is because I have a presumption in my mind.

Let me ask you a question: with the reference of Psalms 90, how do you see 2 Peter 3:8? Are they giving the same idea? Or is it possible that 2 Peter 3:8 is saying the opposite?

If the billions of years time is the real time scale of God, then the short life span of human being is a serious theological problem. Theology is message to us from God. It should not have such kind of problem.

 

[Assyrian]

I know. It is because I have a presumption in my mind.

Let me ask you a question: with the reference of Psalms 90, how do you see 2 Peter 3:8? Are they giving the same idea? Or is it possible that 2 Peter 3:8 is saying the opposite?

No, Peter is taking Psalm 90 and expanding the implications, not only can eons of time seem a passing moment in God's eyes, yet he can study each passing femptosecond as it ticks by, planckseconds do not rush by to fast for him. Peter also takes Moses' used of a thousand years as a day from the context of creation and applies it to the future too, people thinking Christ is taking is taking too long to return, growing impatient when God does not follow their calendar.

If the billions of years time is the real time scale of God, then the short life span of human being is a serious theological problem.

Why? you might as well argue because humans have a short life span, eternal life is a theological problem. It simply does not follow. It wasn't us that had to wait billions of years before our allotted span on earth, it was God, and he doesn't get bored or tired waiting.

Theology is message to us from God. It should not have such kind of problem.

Theology is our limited attempt to understand the infinite, eternal, transendent and almighty God, of course we run into problems like that.

 

[juvenissun]

No, Peter is taking Psalm 90 and expanding the implications, not only can eons of time seem a passing moment in God's eyes, yet he can study each passing femptosecond as it ticks by, planckseconds do not rush by to fast for him. Peter also takes Moses' used of a thousand years as a day from the context of creation and applies it to the future too, people thinking Christ is taking is taking too long to return, growing impatient when God does not follow their calendar.

Why? you might as well argue because humans have a short life span, eternal life is a theological problem. It simply does not follow. It wasn't us that had to wait billions of years before our allotted span on earth, it was God, and he doesn't get bored or tired waiting.

Theology is our limited attempt to understand the infinite, eternal, transendent and almighty God, of course we run into problems like that.

All teachings in the Bible imply that God's time scale is much shorter than our time scale. Theology includes a hint given by God on this matter. So it is most reasonable for me, and everyone else, to treat the billions of years of time only as a reference, but not a true time (God's time).

Back to the OP, the pace of plate tectonics is thought to be slow now. But it could be a normal (to us) play after a very fast forwarding on the tape of time.

 

[Assyrian]

All teachings in the Bible imply that God's time scale is much shorter than our time scale. Theology includes a hint given by God on this matter. So it is most reasonable for me, and everyone else, to treat the billions of years of time only as a reference, but not a true time (God's time).

I think you have two options here, either you can say where God is, in eternity or living out in the CBR (a la Gerard Schroeder), time passes at a very different rate. But that doesn't mean the amount of time that has physically gone by one earth isn't real, that the earth is not actually 4.5 billion years old. Less time may have gone by with God, but the time one earth actually has gone by.

The other is God's perception of time is different, thought God can also describe his perception of time in our terms, or simply describe any long period non literally as a day. But that still leaves that actual amount of time that has gone past real, though how long it felt is very different for God and man.

Be careful though of any approach that makes time on earth illusory, God's creation, while not the greatest reality, is still truly real. It is Hinduism that calls the universe an illusion, Christianity has always proclaimed the reality of God's creation.

Psalm 90:1 Lord, you have been our dwelling place throughout all generations.
2 Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world,from everlasting to everlasting you are God.
3 You turn men back to dust, saying, "Return to dust, O sons of men."
4 For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.
5 You sweep men away in the sleep of death; they are like the new grass of the morning-
6 though in the morning it springs up new, by evening it is dry and withered.
7 We are consumed by your anger and terrified by your indignation.
8 You have set our iniquities before you, our secret sins in the light of your presence.
9 All our days pass away under your wrath; we finish our years with a moan.
10 The length of our days is seventy years— or eighty, if we have the strength; yet their span is but trouble and sorrow, for they quickly pass, and we fly away.
11 Who knows the power of your anger? For your wrath is as great as the fear that is due you.
12 Teach us to number our days aright, that we may gain a heart of wisdom.
13 Relent, O LORD! How long will it be? Have compassion on your servants.
14 Satisfy us in the morning with your unfailing love, that we may sing for joy and be glad all our days.
15 Make us glad for as many days as you have afflicted us, for as many years as we have seen trouble.
16 May your deeds be shown to your servants, your splendour to their children.
17 May the favour of the Lord our God rest upon us; establish the work of our hands for us— yes, establish the work of our hands.

Moses starts of with a thousand years being as a day in God's sight and goes on to compare our lives with grass springing up in the morning and withering by evening. But while this is what our lifespan is like in God's eyes, and how God often speaks of time in the bible, it doesn't mean that the days of our lives aren't a real measure of time. Moses goes on to talk about our lifespans being 70 or 80 years and asking God to bless them and make them glad for as many days and years as they have suffered affliction. Moses is assuming here that God can keep an accurate on exactly how much time has passed here, even though in his sight it is a passing day or a night's watch.

Back to the OP, the pace of plate tectonics is thought to be slow now. But it could be a normal (to us) play after a very fast forwarding on the tape of time.

The question is not whether God can watch in [ffwd] but how many times the earth rotated on its axis, how often it orbited the sun in that time, how many times a caesium atom in the continental crust oscillated as the plate slid forward.

 

[juvenissun]

I think you have two options here, either you can say where God is, in eternity or living out in the CBR (a la Gerard Schroeder), time passes at a very different rate. But that doesn't mean the amount of time that has physically gone by one earth isn't real, that the earth is not actually 4.5 billion years old. Less time may have gone by with God, but the time one earth actually has gone by.

The other is God's perception of time is different, thought God can also describe his perception of time in our terms, or simply describe any long period non literally as a day. But that still leaves that actual amount of time that has gone past real, though how long it felt is very different for God and man.

Be careful though of any approach that makes time on earth illusory, God's creation, while not the greatest reality, is still truly real. It is Hinduism that calls the universe an illusion, Christianity has always proclaimed the reality of God's creation.

The question is not whether God can watch in [ffwd] but how many times the earth rotated on its axis, how often it orbited the sun in that time, how many times a caesium atom in the continental crust oscillated as the plate slid forward.

What you said would be true IF the measured age is true. That fact is that we do not know if it is real. It is only a theoretical projection according to logic.

 

[Assyrian]

What you said would be true IF the measured age is true. That fact is that we do not know if it is real. It is only a theoretical projection according to logic.

Psalm 90:12 Teach us to number our days aright...
The alternative is for the number of days in our lives to be an irrational number. Days might have been shorter 4.5 billion years ago though we can work out by how much, not that it is relevant, because measurement of the age of the earth are given in modern years whether the earth's actual orbit varied or not.

 

[Papias]

Juvie wrote:

Could you cite me a reference on that?

In reponse to where I had written "Except that actual data - you know, what those scientists use - shows that the recession rate was slower, not faster, in the past. "

OK, here's the relevant part, with references.

This paleontological evidence comes in the form of tidal rhythmites, also known as tidally laminated sediments. Rhythmites have been subjected to intense scrutiny over the last decade or so, and have returned strong results. Williams (1990) reports that 650 million years ago, the lunar rate of retreat was 1.95±0.29 cm/year, and that over the period from 2.5 billion to 650 million years ago, the mean recession rate was 1.27 cm/year. Williams reanalyzed the same data set later (Williams, 1997), showing a mean recession rate of 2.16 cm/year in the period between now and 650 million years ago. That these kinds of data are reliable is demonstrated by Archer (1996). There is also a very good review of the earlier paleontological evidence by Lambeck (1980, chapter 11, paleorotation)

As you can see, the paleontological evidence indicates that moon today is retreating from Earth anomalously rapidly. This is exactly as expected from the theoretical models that I have already referenced. The combination of consistent results from both theoretical models and paleontological evidence presents a pretty strong picture of the tidal evolution of the Earth-moon system. Bills & Ray (1999) give a good review of the current status of this harmony. Without realizing it, they have also explained well why the creationist arguments are unacceptable.

and here are references used:

Williams, G.E.
Tidal Rhythmites - Key to the History of the Earth's Rotation and the Moon's Orbit
Journal of the Physics of the Earth 38(6): 475-491, 1990

Williams, G.E.
Precambrian Length of Day and the Validity of Tidal Rhythmite paleotidal Values
Geophysical Research Letters 24(4): 421-424, February 15, 1997

Archer, A.W.
Reliability of lunar orbital periods extracted from ancient cyclic tidal rhythmites
Earth and Planetary Science Letters 141(1-4): 1-10, June 1996

Lambeck, Kurt
The Earth's Variable Rotation - Geophysical causes and consequences
Cambridge University Press, 1980

Bills, B.G. & R.D. Ray Lunar Orbital Evolution: A Synthesis of Recent Results
Geophysical Research Letters 26(19): 3045-3048, October 1, 1999

 

[Papias]

Juvie wrote:

I don't "believe" the millions of years of age, even it is given by viable methods of science. The first thing is that we only know very little of science.

So do you refuse to take your prescriptions because "we only know very little of science"? Or do you doubt computer calculations because "we only know very little of science"? Or do you never fly in an airplane because "we only know very little of science"? I'm just wondering why you single out one field of science for special abuse, and act rationally in the others. They all don't fit with a literal reading of your Bible, which does't talk about their findings.

The second is that we will probably never know the nature of time.

So then do you refuse to make appointments or use bus schedules, or again do you pick out one area of time use to abuse, and tacitly accept the others?

I don't like the 6000-year number because I think it is only another "apparent" age made by man.

So a literal interpretation of your Bible isn't true, but instead is just made by man?

But I don't think the billions of years of age is true either, because it supports evolution (which is wrong)

First, is it rational to deny a reality if it supports something you don't like? Pol pot used gunpowder to kill people. I don't support killing people like that, but I'd be a fool to deny that gunpowder burns.

Second - your simple statement that evolution is "wrong", is of course, silly.

and it is simply too long to be reasonable.

Hey look everyone! The reality of the entire universe revolves around what Juvie thinks is "reasonable"! What humility! Wow, I hope he doesn't start thinking that antibiotics aren't reasonable, or millions of people will be in danger! Maybe we can convince Juvie to think that cancer isn't reasonable, then we could save thousands of lives......

If fact, I don't care what the age of things are, as long as the time frame/sequence of their origin make sense.

Are you saying you accept the sensible sequence of origins determined by biologists through evolution, or that you prefer the non-sensical and self contradictory, demonstrably incorrect order shown in Genesis?

Papias

 

[juvenissun]

Juvie wrote:



In reponse to where I had written "Except that actual data - you know, what those scientists use - shows that the recession rate was slower, not faster, in the past. "

OK, here's the relevant part, with references.



and here are references used:

Williams, G.E.
Tidal Rhythmites - Key to the History of the Earth's Rotation and the Moon's Orbit
Journal of the Physics of the Earth 38(6): 475-491, 1990

Williams, G.E.
Precambrian Length of Day and the Validity of Tidal Rhythmite paleotidal Values
Geophysical Research Letters 24(4): 421-424, February 15, 1997

Archer, A.W.
Reliability of lunar orbital periods extracted from ancient cyclic tidal rhythmites
Earth and Planetary Science Letters 141(1-4): 1-10, June 1996

Lambeck, Kurt
The Earth's Variable Rotation - Geophysical causes and consequences
Cambridge University Press, 1980

Bills, B.G. & R.D. Ray Lunar Orbital Evolution: A Synthesis of Recent Results
Geophysical Research Letters 26(19): 3045-3048, October 1, 1999

OK, thanks.

An accelerated recession rate somehow does not fit my common sense. I checked a more recent work by Williams G.E. (2000). He was not so sure about the accuracy of his method. And, it seems he still thought the recession rate is becoming slower through time. (I am not sure because I am impatient to read through his lengthy argument)

 

[Papias]

An accelerated recession rate somehow does not fit my common sense.

OK, but hardly relevant. The real world often doesn't fit our common sense. Take, for instance, the common sense that the earth is obviously flat. I mean, how could anyone doubt that? Not sure? Just go outside and look! It's flat! Then look up. We are obviously under a dome. Duh. Objects in motion obviously slow down and stop - not sure? then throw a rock and see what happens. See? It stopped. and so on. We all have this kind of common sense - sometimes it's right and sometimes not.

I checked a more recent work by William G.E. (2000). He was not so sure about the accuracy of his method. And, it seems he still thought the recession rate is becoming slower through time. (I am not sure because I am impatient to read through his lengthy argument)

never heard of him. Is this a textbook? Or is it a published paper? Any resources we can use to look into him? Is he actually disputing the earlier evidence, or simply saying that the rate was slow then, has sped up, and right now is decreasing (which would agree with the other view)?

OK, thanks.

You're welcome! Have a nice day-

Papias