Updating The Theory of the Earth

ddubois said:

T it. While I am doing that, perhaps you could look into explaining the recent discovery of soft tissue in some dinosaur fossils, which should indicate a much younger age than 65 million plus years.

Click to expand...

"Dino-blood and the Young Earth"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html


"Dino Blood Redux"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/flesh.html

I am working on a new article to up date on both Prof. Schweitzer's research, and recent creationist frauds.

Doveaman said:

Scientists have a very convenient way of deluding themselves. They observe universal constants as they are today and then delude themselves into believing those constants has never changed.

The arrogance.

Click to expand...

Bwahahahahhaha Really?

If the speed of light was 2,288,333 times faster in the past (which is the minimum for fit astronomical data into a 6,000 year creation) there would have been so much excess radioactivity that the Earth would still be an expanding cloud of gas. The electron force would have been so great that chemical bonds could not have formed, and elements could not have formed in supernova. http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2010/08/are-constants-constant.html

Try learning a tiny bit of chemistry, or physics. And then shed your arrogance and try to learn a little more.

Gene2memE said:

Firstly, I'd like to see the results of C14 testing of soft tissue that dates them at 25,000-40,000 years, because THAT would be headlines globally.

Click to expand...

Here is an example of creationist "science"

DIRECT RADIOCARBON DATING OF DINOSAUR BONES AND OTHER FOSSILS - same radiocarbon age-range as that for megafauna. Author: Hugh R. Miller

Google it. The errors of everything; field work, lab work, and interpretation, are massive.

ddubois said:

We agree. If you would like to consider some of mine, let me know. Following is a taste:
Helium evidence for a young world continues to confound critics
Published: 29 November 2008 (GMT+10)

Click to expand...

Trapped gases in zircons have been used for decades in geological studies. And as we collected data, we found that there were technical problems that limited accuracy. Nothing makes a good career move in science like fixing a good problem. Here is a simple illustration of how modern zircon dating is done.




So, if you look at at the top line on the right side, you'll see about where we are these days.

Do note well that all the errors lowered the age of the mineral.

Edit to add: For a quick review of why Bob Gentry's work was discredited long ago, see: http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2015/07/vernon-cupps-part-2.html

Loudmouth said:

Are you saying the refusal to entertain dinosaur soft tissue over 65 million years old is not because of a belief?

All you have is the empty assertion that soft tissue can't be preserved over 65 million years old. The dinosaur bones themselves are found in very well dated sediments in the Hell's Creek formation (if memory serves).

[added in later edit]

"It is hard to imagine for anyone trained in the rigor of science that Wieland could offer as an apparent concession the notion that "Some dinosaur fossils could have formed in post-Flood local catastrophes." It is hard to imagine Wieland is serious when considering that by "post-Flood," he means that there are dinosur remains floating about that are less than 4000 years old. What is inconceivable is that Wieland is honestly ignorant that the dates associated with the age of these remains are not related to their condition. The age of the specificT. rex bone which was the principle database for Schweitzer et al is not based on either its macro- or microscopic appearance but of the age of the rock that it was found in, "... the base of the Hell Creek Formation, 8 m above the Fox Hills Sandstone, as an association of disarticulated elements." The appearance of soft tissue, hard tissue or no tissue has no bearing in the age of this material- organic or inorganic. What is the basis for these age determinations is the independent existence of geochemical "clocks" known as radiometric dating. Professional creationists and their prey simply reject radiometric dates, which has always seemed to me to be an odd logical contradiction, or in an anthropological term: cognitive dissonance. If these people are able to ignore geology, chemistry and physics, why do they even bother to lie about biology?"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/flesh.html


http://ncse.com/rncse/20/3/radiometric-dating-does-work

Notice the measurements of tektites, biotite, and zircons in the Hell Creek formation in that figure. We have three different minerals measured by three different radiometric methods all producing the same date. The age of the fossils is not in question.

Click to expand...

I am glad you liked my article. ;-)

ddubois said:

Your reply is stimulating. If you can send me the links or internet addresses to your references, particularly the very nice extinction intensity/impact event/vulcanism chart,...

Click to expand...

https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/Geoscien...2012/Volcanism-impacts-and-mass-extinctions-2

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

Stratigraphy covers the dating of rock strata.
I think the standard model of cosmology is the most effective interpretation of the data so far available, although it's certainly incomplete.

Click to expand...

Then you accept the universe is undergoing a continued increasing expansion at an accelerating rate?

Justatruthseeker said:

Then you accept the universe is undergoing a continued increasing expansion at an accelerating rate?

Click to expand...

This thread has nothing to do with cosmology. Please stop dragging threads off topic with your obsessions with cosmology.

Justatruthseeker said:

Then you accept the universe is undergoing a continued increasing expansion at an accelerating rate?

Click to expand...

It seems a reasonable interpretation of the data. How is it relevant here?

Justatruthseeker said:

Then you accept the universe is undergoing a continued increasing expansion at an accelerating rate?

Click to expand...

Did you read the article on mass extinctions?

Volcanism, impacts and mass extinctions (long version)

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

It seems a reasonable interpretation of the data. How is it relevant here?

Click to expand...

So you accept expansion and therefore accept E's postulate that rulers shrink and clocks slow as acceleration increases?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation


You must then also accept the reverse of that postulate:

That as things slow - their rulers get bigger and their clocks tick faster. So as you try to go backwards in time - rulers were bigger and clocks ticked faster. I.e. the oscillation and decay rate of an atom increase as you go backwards in time. That the further back you go - the faster the age appears, because you still use clocks that tick at today's rate - to calculate decay rates that must by postulate of current theory - have been faster the further one goes back in time.

The age of the universe is calculated using clocks that tick at today's rate: Not clocks that increase in elapsed time the further one goes backwards in time. Because by postulate of modern theory - they must have slowed to get to their present rate - since expansion has been continuing to increase.

Loudmouth said:

Please explain why K/Ar, U/Pb, and Rb/Sr dating of the Hell Creek formation is not accurate.

Click to expand...

Well, clearly it's in the name! Satan probably placed the misleading Ar, Pb and Sr values in the rock when he was making the HELL Creek Fm!

-Duh!-

Dr GS Hurd said:

Did you read the article on mass extinctions?

Volcanism, impacts and mass extinctions (long version)

Click to expand...

Oh I agree - there have been at least 5 major extinctions and six sudden appearances of new life - with man being the sixth.

It's just you can't use the rate that clocks tick today to calculate the total elapsed time - when they increase in rate as you go backwards in time. See my above post.

Justatruthseeker said:

"Millions of years ago, plants and animals living in the ocean absorbed energy from the sun and stored this energy in their bodies in the form of carbon. As these animals died, their bodies sank to the bottom of the ocean where they were covered with layers of sediment deposits."

The fallacy that it takes ages to form, that's what fallacy. It doesn't even have to take a day - it just depends on conditions.

Click to expand...

Couple points of order in the realm of "common sense".

FIRST OFF: see that "sank to the bottom of the ocean" and "covered with layers of sediment". That's an interesting clue to time scales. The point being that these organics were entombed in a layer of fine-grained sediments that ultimately became black shales in many cases. THAT MEANS the water column had to be exceedingly quiet which is the only way that clay sized particles can settle out. They take a LONG TIME to settle.

THEN, on top of that, you have to bury them relatively deeply to hit the "oil window" of either/or temperature or pressure and in the absence of any oxygen.

So pile on a few more millenia to get that going. THEN remember you've got this organic stuff forming in a very tight formation (shale) which is not very permeable. It takes a LONG TIME for this stuff to make it out of the source rock and into the reservoir rock. All along the way the organics are being fractionated and altered.

This isn't going to happen quickly.

This is not to say there aren't cases where the oil forms in situ in the rocks that it ultimately resides in as a reservoir rock but the fact that it has to migrate in a lot of the cases should be a sign for "deep time".

Your fallacy is believing the hype that it actually takes long periods of time and heat and pressure.

Click to expand...

In any organic geochem class they do discuss the balance between TIME/TEMPERATURE/PRESSURE but interestingly you can track a lot of these things by looking at when a given oil bearing source rock passes through the oil window as it is subsiding.

The problem is it doesn't have to be any time at all, but just a mere 3000 years ago.

Click to expand...

This may be true for some hypothetical case, but most of the time 3000 years won't be nearly enough time to account for the history of a given formation.

Justatruthseeker said:

Oh I agree - there have been at least 5 major extinctions and six sudden appearances of new life - with man being the sixth.

It's just you can't use the rate that clocks tick today to calculate the total elapsed time - when they increase in rate as you go backwards in time. See my above post.

Click to expand...

Just a quick question in regards to this point...if I am on a spaceship accelerating to near the speed of light, won't my clocks on my ship read time consistently for me? The beauty of the twin paradox which is what you are getting at here is that you have a different frame to compare to. The twins don't feel any difference in the rate of their aging until their frames are brought back together, correct?

So if we are in a universe in which time is speeding up it is only speeding up with reference to an observer outside of our universe. Correct?

So I don't think this gambit will help explain old earth data in a young earth model. Unless, of course, Young Earth Creationists live outside of this universe and only post to us from outside of it.

amanuensis63 said:

Just a quick question in regards to this point...if I am on a spaceship accelerating to near the speed of light, won't my clocks on my ship read time consistently for me? The beauty of the twin paradox which is what you are getting at here is that you have a different frame to compare to. The twins don't feel any difference in the rate of their aging until their frames are brought back together, correct?

So if we are in a universe in which time is speeding up it is only speeding up with reference to an observer outside of our universe. Correct?

So I don't think this gambit will help explain old earth data in a young earth model. Unless, of course, Young Earth Creationists live outside of this universe and only post to us from outside of it.

Click to expand...

Consistent to you because your clocks are now measuring a different rate as your energy increases. It's not magic, your clocks are changing and your rulers are shrinking - but because you still call those different lengths and different rates a meter and a second - you notice no change.

Take a second hand on a clock. A point near the hub (Twin A) travels less of a distance and at less velocity to traverse it's arc of elapsed time called a second - then a point at the tip - Twin B.

Both call the distance traveled the same - even if we know they are not. Both call the elapsed time a second - even if we understand in reality they are not the same distance or time interval apart - but are "PROPORTIONAL" - not the "SAME".

Proportional to energy content and energy content alone which is gained through acceleration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

"It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes. "

A bullet measures zero kinetic energy in it's own frame - even if you and I both understand it indeed possesses it from it's acceleration. And now you want to use the strawman "one's own frame" to try to deflect?

And your calculating the distance the twin's travel using who's clock and who's rulers?

Another flaw in your theory.

If A and B are one light year apart to a stationary observer, they must in fact be more than one light year apart to a moving observer - since his rulers are shorter. Yet you calculate the same distance in both frames magically, as if we aren't supposed to notice that. You shrink the distance - while leaving both rulers a meter - even if you know they are not the same size. Refusing to accept your own postulates.

EDIT:
The faster twin ages less because his atomic decay rate "is" less - due to added energy from acceleration, just as the slower or stationary twin ages faster because his atomic decay rate "is" faster. And the same apples to an expansion that was superluminal (faster than c) to begin with and is continuing to increase - except the error rate is exponential if you refuse to adjust your clocks.

ddubois said:

Thanks -- indeed a very nice chart, which I think will help me in my understanding. As to the delay in my response, I am still not fully understanding how to respond in Christian Forums, and didn't immediately know you had sent this, since I didn't get an e-mail notification as I have in the past, which I had thought was automatic.

While I think the chronological order of the super volcanoes and meteoric impacts is correct, I still have reservations about the number of years, because I have been assured there are many other dating methods supporting a young earth.

Click to expand...

Those who give you this assurance are misled or bearing false witness.

Also I believe that a change in the c14/c12 ratio some 5000 years ago actual (not c14 dated) time is a viable hypothesis

Click to expand...

c14 dating has been checked by such things as annual lake bottom deposits and annual layers in ice cores and annual tree growth layers and there is not such change.

and I suspect a similar modification to Ur/Pb and other long age radiometric dating may also be viable.

Click to expand...

It is not.

Again, thank you for the address of the nice chart, which I have copied for further study. One of the questions I would like to ask the creationist scientists is how to pack so much destruction in 10,000 or fewer years.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

Just look around our solar system. Every airless body (such as our own moon) bears the marks of tremendous bombardment history that would destroy all life if it happened all at once. Bodies with atmosphere have had time to erode those evidences away.

When is the Creationist time frame for that bombardment to have happened if not long ago in deep time? For surely, it happened on earth as well.