How old is a burning mountain?

[Micaiah]

The closest volcanic activity to Mt Wingen that occurred after formation of the coal seam is that responsible for the Liverpool Range Basalts, less than 5 kilometres (3 miles) to the north and to the west18 The same basalts are found to the north-east of Mt Wingen also. But these basalts have been dated using the potassium-argon radioactive method as 38 million to 41 million years old.19 Today they cover an area of approximately 6000 square kilometres (almost 2,620 square miles) and are in places up to 800 metres (over 2,600 feet) thick, so they represent an enormous outpouring of molten lavas.20 Thus it seems likely that these small intrusions of similar composition in the nearby Mt Wingen area are related to the same volcano and volcanic event. Indeed, there are intrusive rocks of related composition and the same ‘age’ about 80 kilometres (49.5 miles) to the south,21 and other intrusives about 20 kilometres (12.5 miles)22 and 50 kilometres (31 miles)23, 24 to the south, so volcanic activity has been widespread through this region.
However, this would imply that if this intrusive rock at Burning Mountain is supposedly 38 million to 41 million years old, then it must have ignited the coal seam at that time. This is clearly impossible, for we have seen that observational evidence in the present is only consistent with the coal having been burning for less than 6000 years. Consequently, if this intrusive rock ignited the coal then it can’t be millions of years old.

From this article by Andrew Snelling

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/880

What model of origins best fits the evidence presented in this article - YEC or Evolution?

 

[OdwinOddball]

Please, if you're going to ask questions like this, GET THE THEORIES RIGHT!

Evolution says nothing about how old geological formations are. Evolution does not deal with Origins of anything.

Evolution is change in allele frequencies over time.

Now, if you'd like to ask what explains this better, YEC, or modern Geology and vulcanology, you might have a valid question.

 

[PKJ]

First, evolution has nothing to do with the age of volcanic rocks. It is a theory of the origin of species. Of course evo does use data from geology, so it is pretty obvious to see anti-evolutionists bringing that kind of misinformation to bash at evolution.

Now, let's look at what the article actually says. There is nothing about evolution in there. What "Snelling" actually does is show a situation where potassium-argon dating cannot work, i.e. hand-picking one single exception instead of actually attacking the theory. Then he goes on with the typical "see? see? darwinists are so indoctrined that they refuse to admit they are wrong!!11!!"

 

[TeddyKGB]

From this article by Andrew Snelling

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/880

What model of origins best fits the evidence presented in this article - YEC or Evolution?

Even if Snelling's analysis is on the up-and-up, it does not support the larger premise of YEC. Young features are easily consistent with old Earth uniformitarianism.

The YEC model, in fact, is on ridiculously shaky philosophical ground from the get-go. As noted, OE uniformitarianism can deal with geologically young (and catastrophically created) features. The contrapositive does not apply to YEC.

 

[Micaiah]

I use evolution in the same sense that the title of this forum is labelled "Creation and Evolution". By evolution I'm referring to the notion that the world is billlions of years old, and that the fossil and geological record confirms this. I accept this may not be strictly correct in the technical sense but it is a convenient label on a forum such as this. Having now defined what I mean, I trust this eliminates any ambiguity.

 

[Garnett]

From this article by Andrew Snelling

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/880

What model of origins best fits the evidence presented in this article - YEC or Evolution?

LOL.

Be your own Creationist Science writer:

Lession 1 ($100)

Highlight the following line and paste it into a Google search:

Geology 5500..6000 years

(This will helpfully find all geological occurances at about the "start" of the world.)

Go to any site and delete paragraphs containing stuff like the bits in bold:

"By 1829 it was known that it was a burning coal seam, part of the 235-million-year-old Greta Series which forms the main coalfields of the Hunter Valley. As one section of the seam is burnt out the fire moves on to the next. However, as it is some 30 m underground there is little oxygen so the rate of combustion is slow. Consequently the burning site moves about one metre southwards each year. As it has moved 6 km it is estimated that it has been burning for approximately the last 5500 years. It has shifted 150 m since 1828." - From here

Keep paragraphs such as this:

"As the seam was once exposed to the surface it is speculated that a bushfire may have ignited it, although sulphur is capable of spontaneous combustion after heating." - same as above

But make sure to follow it with stuff like this:

" However, spontaneous combustion of coal seams today is not known to occur where a coal seam is weathering in outcrop at the surface. On the contrary, spontaneous combustion occurs where coal has been freshly exposed in mine workings, whether in an open pit or in underground tunnels, the heat which ignites the coal being generated by a rapid drying out and oxidation of the coal constituents because they have been rapidly exposed to the elements by the mining process." from Answersingenesis

Don't worry if this is the only part of your text without any supporting references cited.

Job done.

Next week: Lesson 2: How to rake in cash through Video Sales and Disingenuity. ($4000)

 

[Micaiah]

LOL.

Be your own Creationist Science writer:

Lession 1 ($100)

Highlight the following line and paste it into a Google search:

Geology 5500..6000 years

(This will helpfully find all geological occurances at about the "start" of the world.)

Go to any site and delete paragraphs containing stuff like the bits in bold:

"By 1829 it was known that it was a burning coal seam, part of the 235-million-year-old Greta Series which forms the main coalfields of the Hunter Valley. As one section of the seam is burnt out the fire moves on to the next. However, as it is some 30 m underground there is little oxygen so the rate of combustion is slow. Consequently the burning site moves about one metre southwards each year. As it has moved 6 km it is estimated that it has been burning for approximately the last 5500 years. It has shifted 150 m since 1828." - From here

Keep paragraphs such as this:

"As the seam was once exposed to the surface it is speculated that a bushfire may have ignited it, although sulphur is capable of spontaneous combustion after heating." - same as above

But make sure to follow it with stuff like this:

" However, spontaneous combustion of coal seams today is not known to occur where a coal seam is weathering in outcrop at the surface. On the contrary, spontaneous combustion occurs where coal has been freshly exposed in mine workings, whether in an open pit or in underground tunnels, the heat which ignites the coal being generated by a rapid drying out and oxidation of the coal constituents because they have been rapidly exposed to the elements by the mining process." from Answersingenesis

Don't worry if this is the only part of your text without any supporting references cited.

Job done.

Next week: Lesson 2: How to rake in cash through Video Sales and Disingenuity. ($4000)

Your post is clearly an attempt to belittle CMI (AIG). In what way can you directly address the issues raised in the OP?

 

[Split Rock]

Niagara Falls also proves the earth is much younger than evo-geologists claim. Afterall, the earth cannot be older than Niagara falls is... can it??

See: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i4/niagara_falls.asp


More proof as to the young age of Niagara Falls..

"The Niagara Peninsula became free of the ice about 12,500 years ago. As the ice retreated northward, its meltwaters began to flow down through what became Lake Erie, the Niagara River and Lake Ontario, down to the St. Lawrence River, and, finally, down to the sea. There were originally 5 spillways from Lake Erie to Lake Ontario. Eventually these were reduced to one, the original Niagara Falls, at Queenston-Lewiston. From here the Falls began its steady erosion through the bedrock."

http://www.niagarafallslive.com/Facts_about_Niagara_Falls.htm

 

[Garnett]

Your post is clearly an attempt to belittle CMI (AIG). In what way can you directly address the issues raised in the OP?

You cite no proof to demonstrate how a disingenuous person might come up with something very similar to the article you have mentioned, by using the technique I describe.

I, on the other hand, clearly show that the AnswersInGenesis article cites no evidence for its claim that:

"However, spontaneous combustion of coal seams today is not known to occur where a coal seam is weathering in outcrop at the surface. On the contrary, spontaneous combustion occurs where coal has been freshly exposed in mine workings, whether in an open pit or in underground tunnels, the heat which ignites the coal being generated by a rapid drying out and oxidation of the coal constituents because they have been rapidly exposed to the elements by the mining process."

This is the key claim here and the key difference between the AIG article and the geniune articles about the Burning Mountain. The fact that this is the only paragraph without references is telling.

AIG does not need to cite any references. It is open about the fact it does not practise geniune science. It is open about the fact it will discount any evidence which suggests YEC is incorrect.

In this way it absconds itself from the duty to provide geniune factual authorship, but also excludes it from serious scientific discussion.

 

[Micaiah]

Develop your argument in a logical coherent manner rather than taking sarcastic pot shots. I'm open to challenges to the scientific validity of the comments made in the OP.

I've yet to see a post that supports the the age given to the volcanic material by evolutionists.

 

[Micaiah]

You cite no proof to demonstrate how a disingenuous person might come up with something very similar to the article you have mentioned, by using the technique I describe.

I don't have to respond to your insinuations.

I, on the other hand, clearly show that the AnswersInGenesis article cites no evidence for its claim that:

"However, spontaneous combustion of coal seams today is not known to occur where a coal seam is weathering in outcrop at the surface. On the contrary, spontaneous combustion occurs where coal has been freshly exposed in mine workings, whether in an open pit or in underground tunnels, the heat which ignites the coal being generated by a rapid drying out and oxidation of the coal constituents because they have been rapidly exposed to the elements by the mining process."

The reasons are discussed extensively in the article sited in the OP. Have you read the article?

This is the key claim here and the key difference between the AIG article and the geniune articles about the Burning Mountain. The fact that this is the only paragraph without references is telling.

The point you are trying to make is nonsense and bears little or no relevance to the OP.

AIG does not need to cite any references. It is open about the fact it does not practise geniune science. It is open about the fact it will discount any evidence which suggests YEC is incorrect.

In this way it absconds itself from the duty to provide geniune factual authorship, but also excludes it from serious scientific discussion.

It is obvious you are only interested in taking pot shots at CMI (AIG).

 

[Garnett]

Develop your argument in a logical coherent manner rather than taking sarcastic pot shots. I'm open to challenges to the scientific validity of the comments made in the OP.

I've yet to see a post that supports the the age given to the volcanic material by evolutionists.

Hmmm.

Your OP cites an article by a team of people who agree to discount and ignore evidence for an old Earth.

You then ask what model (presumably between a "young Earth" and an "old Earth") best fits their "evdience".

That argument is therefore flawed and rebutted.

I don't have to respond to your insinuations.

Of course noit, but then they stand as unrefuted, unlike all your points so far in this thread.

I have demonstrated where the article you cite differs from the geniune articles on the subject and highlighted the fact that, in an article bursting with citations, there is an notable lack of citations in the only paragraph where this differs from the geniune articles.

So far you have made no response to that.

I have also pointed out how a disingenuous person could produce an article like the one you cite using my simple method.

You have yet to refute that.

Split Rock and I have both highlighted facts missing from the AIG accounts of the subject matter in their articles. These are far from "sarcastic potshots".

As I have said before. This comes as no surprise and is not unfair. AIG is open about not practising real science.

Are you trying to use its articles as such, and if so, why?

 

[Garnett]

I, on the other hand, clearly show that the AnswersInGenesis article cites no evidence for its claim that:

"However, spontaneous combustion of coal seams today is not known to occur where a coal seam is weathering in outcrop at the surface. On the contrary, spontaneous combustion occurs where coal has been freshly exposed in mine workings, whether in an open pit or in underground tunnels, the heat which ignites the coal being generated by a rapid drying out and oxidation of the coal constituents because they have been rapidly exposed to the elements by the mining process."

The reasons are discussed extensively in the article sited in the OP. Have you read the article?

Err, yes. Unfortunately that makes it no easier to show the gaps where that evdience is missing. If you wanted to show you are right you would only need to post the quotes where the references for these claims are cited, that would prove your point.

This is the key claim here and the key difference between the AIG article and the geniune articles about the Burning Mountain. The fact that this is the only paragraph without references is telling.

The point you are trying to make is nonsense and bears little or no relevance to the OP.

Really? This concerns the one area of the AIG article where it differs from geniune articles, and is the only part of the AIG article without supporting references cited. I think others reading this may consider it pretty much as relevant as you can get.

AIG does not need to cite any references. It is open about the fact it does not practise geniune science. It is open about the fact it will discount any evidence which suggests YEC is incorrect. In this way it absconds itself from the duty to provide geniune factual authorship, but also excludes it from serious scientific discussion.

It is obvious you are only interested in taking pot shots at CMI (AIG).

Please do not belittle my vitriol. My comments are not a "potshot", they are a slamming indictment on the veracity or lack thereof in anything that organisation authors.

AIG's only saving grace is that it is open about not practising geniune science,. By trying to use its material as such you are excluded from that grace.

 

[jwu]

Just wondering...shouldn't the flood have extinguished that fire? It may burn slowly, but one year under water should be too much for it.

I guess the whole answer is similar: Lava could pass through the coal in absence of oxygen. Without oxygen, it won't burn.

 

[Micaiah]

If the ignition source is the volcano, the estimate of age provide by the YEC model is more accurate than that of the evolutionist. How sure are scientist that the mountain has been burning for 6000 years and not 4000 years. That is very different to 38 to 41 million years.

 

[Split Rock]

Develop your argument in a logical coherent manner rather than taking sarcastic pot shots. I'm open to challenges to the scientific validity of the comments made in the OP.

I've yet to see a post that supports the the age given to the volcanic material by evolutionists.

The assumption of the AIG article you site seems to be that lava started the coal fire, and that the only lava that could have started it was dated to millions of years by geologists. This is only conjecture without any evidence to support it. Other than this assertion, there is no reason to reject the age given to the basalt formations mentioned in the article.

You do agree in any case that the 6,000 year estimate for how long the fire has been burning does not disprove that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, right?

 

[Micaiah]

The assumption of the AIG article you site seems to be that lava started the coal fire, and that the only lava that could have started it was dated to millions of years by geologists.

Read the article. The author is suggesting this is the best explanation for the way in which the fire started and sites evidence for lava flow into the coal seam. That is NOT an assumption.

This is only conjecture without any evidence to support it. Other than this assertion, there is no reason to reject the age given to the basalt formations mentioned in the article.

Wrong. Obviously you haven't bothered to read the article.

You do agree in any case that the 6,000 year estimate for how long the fire has been burning does not disprove that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, right?

That is not the topic of the OP.

 

[caravelair]

If the ignition source is the volcano,

are you saying this allowed the coal to burn underwater?

the estimate of age provide by the YEC model is more accurate than that of the evolutionist.

how so?

How sure are scientist that the mountain has been burning for 6000 years and not 4000 years. That is very different to 38 to 41 million years.

not sure if i know exactly what you are trying to say here, but 6000/4000 = 1.5, 41/38 = 1.08... a 50% difference is much bigger than an 8% difference...

 

[Micaiah]

not sure if i know exactly what you are trying to say here, but 6000/4000 = 1.5, 41/38 = 1.08... a 50% difference is much bigger than an 8% difference...

The comparison needs to be between the time that the coal seam has been estimated to be burning, and the age predicted by either model of origins.

 

[caravelair]

The comparison needs to be between the time that the coal seam has been estimated to be burning, and the age predicted by either model of origins.

what does the age have to do with how long it has been burning?