Questions about/problems with YEC

[OldWiseGuy]

[

 

[RightWingGirl]

Where did all the heat go? If the geologic record was deposited in a year, then the events it records must also have occurred within a year. Some of these events release significant amounts of heat.

Magma. The geologic record includes roughly 8 x 1024 grams of lava flows and igneous intrusions. Assuming (conservatively) a specific heat of 0.15, this magma would release 5.4 x 1027 joules while cooling 1100 degrees C. In addition, the heat of crystallization as the magma solidifies would release a great deal more heat.

Ma'am, I have suspicions that you may have gotten this quote form TalkOrigins. Perhaps you are not aware that TalkOrigins is a notorious prevaricator. If I might suggest, you should carefully check your sources before you quote them in a discussion. It can look very damaging to someone’s argument if they quote something unfactual, especially as everyone reading though the posts may not realize that you were tricked by a dishonest source and did not make the mistake yourself.

Your source tell us that the "The geologic record includes roughly 8 x 1024 grams of lava flows and igneous intrusions." If this were true I should be most alarmed. Especially as this is nearly 1000 times more than the complete mass of the earth, which is 5.9 x 10^27. Although I am not very good at geology, it looks as though your source is very mistaken. If we ever do have that much magma, however, I should not be surprised if it did generate the amount of heat you say, although I have not yet looked at those caculations.

 

[Dannager]

Your source tell us that the "The geologic record includes roughly 8 x 1024 grams of lava flows and igneous intrusions." If this were true I should be most alarmed. Especially as this is nearly 1000 times more than the complete mass of the earth, which is 5.9 x 10^27.

Hahahahahaha. You're kidding, right? You bothered to go through so much bad-mouthing of TalkOrigins and then you don't even check your math?

glaudys' post said "The geologic record includes roughly 8 x 1024 grams of lava flows and igneous intrusions." 8 x 10^24 grams. Note that this is to the 24th power. The 24th power has three fewer zeros than the 27th power. The mass of the earth is 5.98 x 10^27 grams. There are three more zeros in the mass of the earth. That's not "nearly 1000 times more than the complete mass of the earth". That's nearly 1,000 times less than the complete mass of the earth. You got your powers backwards.

Please double-check your math before railing on a reputable website like that. You leaped without looking and you've come out looking rather foolish.

EDIT: For reference, I'm going to show you exactly what each looks like.

The mass of the lava flows and igneous intrusions:
8,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 grams

The mass of the earth:
5,980,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 grams

See how those don't line up quite right?

 

[gluadys]

Ma'am, I have suspicions that you may have gotten this quote form TalkOrigins.

You don't need to be suspicious. I put in the link to TalkOrigins.

Perhaps you are not aware that TalkOrigins is a notorious prevaricator.

So far, I have not found this to be the case. Perhaps you would like to provide an example.

Your source tell us that the "The geologic record includes roughly 8 x 1024 grams of lava flows and igneous intrusions." If this were true I should be most alarmed. Especially as this is nearly 1000 times more than the complete mass of the earth, which is 5.9 x 10^27.

You are out by a few orders of magnitude. The amount of lava and igneous intrusions is cited as 8 x 10^24 grams. The mass of the earth is calculated as 5.9 x 10^24 kilograms. This would equate to 5.9 x 10^27 grams, but as Dannager points out, this is still much more than the mass of lava/igneous intrusions.


http://www.wonderquest.com/calculation-mass-of-earth.htm

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Go to www.amazon.com, search Books Geology
Pick up one of the general books and whichever of the Roadside books you are most likely to use.

Or go to a library.

Sit down, open the book and your mind and read.

How can I be sure that the information that you recommend won't change tomorrow? This from a lengthy article about chalk:

Recently in the UK, Prof. Mortimore of Brighton University has reviewed the geological subdivisions of the UK Chalk. His new practical subdivision uses a combination of lithostratigraphy, biostratigraphy and chronostratigraphy and has replaced the older biostratigraphic subdivision of the Chalk used by the British Geological Survey. This zonation tended to be biased towards the use of fossils such as Ammonites.

I realize that this is small potatoes, but there are many such changes taking place all the time. Unless you're plugged in to them you have no way of keeping up.

 

[PaladinValer]

Talk.Origins is at least valid science...

 

[Dannager]

Scientific explainations are good, and I read lots of them. But I can't spend my life chasing down the changes. The bible doesn't change. When God says there was a worldwide flood, I can be certain that the next time I read Genesis 1, the flood will still be there.

The fact that a book that is already written doesn't change is comforting to you somehow?

 

[KerrMetric]

Your source tell us that the "The geologic record includes roughly 8 x 1024 grams of lava flows and igneous intrusions." If this were true I should be most alarmed. Especially as this is nearly 1000 times more than the complete mass of the earth, which is 5.9 x 10^27. Although I am not very good at geology, it looks as though your source is very mistaken. If we ever do have that much magma, however, I should not be surprised if it did generate the amount of heat you say, although I have not yet looked at those caculations.

And you wonder why I laugh.

 

[KerrMetric]

And why are these forums infested with unbelievers like you?

Nice use of calling a Catholic an unbeliever, that is usually the calling card of cultists.

 

[LoG]

Talk.Origins is at least valid science...

That's actually funny. Talk.Origins has about the same reputation as Answers in Genesis for the evolutionists.

 

[KerrMetric]

That's actually funny. Talk.Origins has about the same reputation as Answers in Genesis for the evolutionists.

No it doesn't. A few die hard YEC's might say that but then they cannot parse the information which is really the cause of their problems with it. Answers in Goofyness has a reputation based upon the fact some of their contributors just flat out lie. I think I have read every page on AIG and have yet to really see any science on the site.

 

[gluadys]

That's actually funny. Talk.Origins has about the same reputation as Answers in Genesis for the evolutionists.

The difference being that evolutionists can substantiate reasons for AiG's deservedly low reputation. Creationists just don't like what Talk.origins says. They haven't shown it is guilty of the sort of manipulation AiG regularly engages in.

 

[LoG]

They haven't shown it is guilty of the sort of manipulation AiG regularly engages in.

I don't have the link any more but I've seen some evidence of proven manipulation by the Talk.Origins site.

 

[KerrMetric]

I don't have the link any more but I've seen some evidence of proven manipulation by the Talk.Origins site.

The difference is 95% of TO is probably accurate with 5% semi-accurate and perhaps outdated.

Pretty much 100% of AIG is actual lies or incomplete/simplistic claptrap.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Ma'am, I have suspicions that you may have gotten this quote form TalkOrigins. Perhaps you are not aware that TalkOrigins is a notorious prevaricator. If I might suggest, you should carefully check your sources before you quote them in a discussion. It can look very damaging to someone’s argument if they quote something unfactual, especially as everyone reading though the posts may not realize that you were tricked by a dishonest source and did not make the mistake yourself.

Your source tell us that the "The geologic record includes roughly 8 x 1024 grams of lava flows and igneous intrusions." If this were true I should be most alarmed. Especially as this is nearly 1000 times more than the complete mass of the earth, which is 5.9 x 10^27. Although I am not very good at geology, it looks as though your source is very mistaken. If we ever do have that much magma, however, I should not be surprised if it did generate the amount of heat you say, although I have not yet looked at those caculations.

geology is not my field
however i can read scientific notation
10^27 is 1000 times 10^24
not the other way around as you state.


see page 10 of
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache...ludes+roughly+8+x+10&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2
it will be highlighted

 

[shernren]

I don't have the link any more but I've seen some evidence of proven manipulation by the Talk.Origins site.

How's about evidence of proven manipulation (or even incompetence) by AiG?

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=19655613#post19655613

 

[LoG]

The difference is 95% of TO is probably accurate with 5% semi-accurate and perhaps outdated.

That really depends on one's viewpoint doesn't it.

 

[Dannager]

That really depends on one's viewpoint doesn't it.

No, it depends on evidentiary fact. Viewpoint's got nothing to do with it.

 

[Dannager]

And why are these forums infested with unbelievers like you?

Smooth, man. Real smooth. The pinnacle of Christian fellowship, you are.

 

[Gwenyfur]

After reading and posting and reading and researching and posting I have come to one conclusion...

Creationists (YEC and OEC) and evolutionists (Theistic & Athiestic) are so busy calling each other's sources fraudulent, corrupt, and manipulative that it's no wonder no one ever really gets to the point.

Too busy playing semantics with verbage....chasing rabbit trails or just plain coming out of left field to change the subject.

It's a wonder anyone can even agree that the sky is blue and dirt is brown