Which creation do creationists want us to believe took place?

[juvenissun]

A combination of heat input from the Sun and radioactive materials within the Earth come together to make for an equilibrium temperature in the right range.

Apply what you said to the moon. See what could happen. You may increase the amount of heat proportionally according to the bigger volume of the earth.

 

[thaumaturgy]

You got it. But your questions are to be dealt with in other considerations.

At least, we recognized that there IS enough water to do the global flood. You want me to dealt with one issue. I did.

Juvenissun dealt with one issue in standard Creationist form by ignoring the very real problems raised by all the other issues as listed by Chalnoth.

This is why it is important for scientists to deal in detail.

When one ignores all the rest of the picture it's easy to come up with any number of hypotheses.

 

[Chalnoth]

Apply what you said to the moon. See what could happen. You may increase the amount of heat proportionally according to the bigger volume of the earth.

1. Smaller bodies tend to cool more rapidly than larger bodies (because they don't get to as high of temperatures as larger bodies during formation).
2. Yes, the greenhouse effect (as well as the albedo) do have a significant part to play as well. I neglected to mention this to keep things simple.

But what is your point?

 

[Morcova]

Do a simple comparision, Thaumaturgy:

Genesis 1:

1. The order of creation.
2. No suffering or death.
3. The Godhead speaking.

Science:

1. The order of the creation is wrong.
2. Survival of the Fittest.
3. God does not exist.

Now tell me that that second list is not hostile to the first one.

Where does science say god doesn't exists?
See avvet it's pretty clear that your argument is flawed when you have to lie about others positions.

 

[Chalnoth]

Where does science say god doesn't exists?
See avvet it's pretty clear that your argument is flawed when you have to lie about others positions.

This is a pretty good argument for how science shows this:
http://machineslikeus.com/scientific-proof-of-gods-non-existence

Of course, to be pedantic, the actual "proof" is that it is highly, highly unlikely that anything like a god exists. So unlikely that we can bet our lives on it without worry.

 

[thaumaturgy]

This is a pretty good argument for how science shows this:
http://machineslikeus.com/scientific-proof-of-gods-non-existence

Of course, to be pedantic, the actual "proof" is that it is highly, highly unlikely that anything like a god exists. So unlikely that we can bet our lives on it without worry.

That's a key difference. There is a big gulf between making the claim "X does not exist" and the claim "There is no evidence that X exists". One can never support a "universal negative". Perhaps God is behind the sofa and when you checked there he moved over behind the book case. One cannot claim something doesn't exist unless one is capable of seeing all space and all time simultaneously.

BUT, indeed, the type of atheism I cleave to is that since I fail to find evidence for God's existence I fail to "reject the null hypothesis of 'there is no God'".

So, in effect, I do what you are saying and live my life with the concept that God doesn't exist. But, in point of fact, I do not say that. I merely say that I fail to see evidence sufficient for me to reject the null hypothesis.

(I know this is "hyper-pedantic" but a subtlety of some importance in science and logic.)

 

[Chalnoth]

That's a key difference. There is a big gulf between making the claim "X does not exist" and the claim "There is no evidence that X exists". One can never support a "universal negative". Perhaps God is behind the sofa and when you checked there he moved over behind the book case. One cannot claim something doesn't exist unless one is capable of seeing all space and all time simultaneously.

BUT, indeed, the type of atheism I cleave to is that since I fail to find evidence for God's existence I fail to "reject the null hypothesis of 'there is no God'".

So, in effect, I do what you are saying and live my life with the concept that God doesn't exist. But, in point of fact, I do not say that. I merely say that I fail to see evidence sufficient for me to reject the null hypothesis.

(I know this is "hyper-pedantic" but a subtlety of some importance in science and logic.)

Right, but simple probabilistic arguments demonstrate that if there is no evidence whatsoever for any specific positive statement (e.g. a god exists), direct or indirect, then it is highly, highly unlikely that that positive statement is true.

 

[BananaSlug]

So why doesn't the sun work the same on the moon? Because of no water there. Right? There is not much water in the air of the earth either.

No, because the moon doesn't have enough gravity to hold an atmosphere. CO2 and Methane are much stronger greenhouse gases than water vapor.

So, how does the earth keep herself warm globally? The air. Right?

Yep. The air. Approx 70% Nitrogen, 20% Oxygen, and 10% other gases. The concentrations of these gases have changed over the eons.

So, what was the air like at the beginning of the earth?

Origin of the Earth's Atmosphere

Introduction

Early Earth would have been very different and inhospitable compared to the Earth today.

• Hot
  • Why? - Primordial heat, collisions and compression during accretion, decay of short-lived radioactive elements
  • Consequences - Constant volcanism, surface temperature too high for liquid water or life as we know it, molten surface or thin, unstable basaltic crust.
• Atmosphere - early atmosphere probably completely different in composition (H2, He)
• Cooling
  • Primordial heat dissipated to space
  • Condensation of water (rain), accumulation of surface water.
  • Accumulation of new atmosphere due to volcanic out gassing
  • Conditions appropriate for evolution of life

Evolution of the Atmosphere

Atmosphere - Envelope of gases that surrounds the Earth. Used by life as a reservoir of chemical compounds used in living systems. Atmosphere has no outer boundary, just fades into space. Dense part of atmosphere (97% of mass) lies within 30 km of the Earth (so about same thickness as continental crust).

• Chemical Composition Today - Nitrogen (N2)- 78%, Oxygen (O2)- 21%, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - 0.03 %, plus other miscellaneous gases (H2O for one).

(figure and table from Lutgens and Tarbuck, The Atmosphere, 8th edition)


First Atmosphere

• Composition - Probably H2, He
• These gases are relatively rare on Earth compared to other places in the universe and were probably lost to space early in Earth's history because
  • Earth's gravity is not strong enough to hold lighter gases
  • Earth still did not have a differentiated core (solid inner/liquid outer core) which creates Earth's magnetic field (magnetosphere = Van Allen Belt) which deflects solar winds.
• Once the core differentiated the heavier gases could be retained

Second Atmosphere

Produced by volcanic out gassing.

• Gases produced were probably similar to those created by modern volcanoes (H2O, CO2, SO2, CO, S2, Cl2, N2, H2) and NH3 (ammonia) and CH4 (methane)
• No free O2 at this time (not found in volcanic gases).

• Ocean Formation - As the Earth cooled, H2O produced by out gassing could exist as liquid in the Early Archean, allowing oceans to form.
  • Evidence - pillow basalts, deep marine seds in greenstone belts.

Addition of O2 to the Atmosphere

Today, the atmosphere is ~21% free oxygen. How did oxygen reach these levels in the atmosphere? Revisit the oxygen cycle:

• Oxygen Production
  • Photochemical dissociation - breakup of water molecules by ultraviolet
    • Produced O2 levels approx. 1-2% current levels
    • At these levels O3 (Ozone) can form to shield Earth surface from UV
  • Photosynthesis - CO2 + H2O + sunlight = organic compounds + O2 - produced by cyanobacteria, and eventually higher plants - supplied the rest of O2 to atmosphere. Thus plant populations
• Oxygen Consumers
  • Chemical Weathering - through oxidation of surface materials (early consumer)
  • Animal Respiration (much later)
  • Burning of Fossil Fuels (much, much later)

Throughout the Archean there was little to no free oxygen in the atmosphere (<1% of presence levels). What little was produced by cyanobacteria, was probably consumed by the weathering process. Once rocks at the surface were sufficiently oxidized, more oxygen could remain free in the atmosphere.

During the Proterozoic the amount of free O2 in the atmosphere rose from 1 - 10 %. Most of this was released by cyanobacteria, which increase in abundance in the fossil record 2.3 Ga. Present levels of O2 were probably not achieved until ~400 Ma.

Evidence from the Rock Record

• Iron (Fe) i s extremely reactive with oxygen. If we look at the oxidation state of Fe in the rock record, we can infer a great deal about atmospheric evolution.
• Archean - Find occurrence of minerals that only form in non-oxidizing environments in Archean sediments: Pyrite (Fools gold; FeS2), Uraninite (UO2). These minerals are easily dissolved out of rocks under present atmospheric conditions.
• Banded Iron Formation (BIF) - Deep water deposits in which layers of iron-rich minerals alternate with iron-poor layers, primarily chert. Iron minerals include iron oxide, iron carbonate, iron silicate, iron sulfide. BIF's are a major source of iron ore, b/c they contain magnetite (Fe3O4) which has a higher iron-to-oxygen ratio than hematite. These are common in rocks 2.0 - 2.8 B.y. old, but do not form today.
• Red beds (continental siliciclastic deposits) are never found in rocks older than 2.3 B. y., but are common during Phanerozoic time. Red beds are red because of the highly oxidized mineral hematite (Fe2O3), that probably forms secondarily by oxidation of other Fe minerals that have accumulated in the sediment.

Conclusion - amount of O2 in the atmosphere has increased with time.

Biological Evidence

• Chemical building blocks of life could not have formed in the presence of atmospheric oxygen. Chemical reactions that yield amino acids are inhibited by presence of very small amounts of oxygen.
• Oxygen prevents growth of the most primitive living bacteria such as photosynthetic bacteria, methane-producing bacteria and bacteria that derive energy from fermentation. Conclustion - Since today's most primitive life forms are anaerobic, the first forms of cellular life probably had similar metabolisms.
• Today these anaerobic life forms are restricted to anoxic (low oxygen) habitats such as swamps, ponds, and lagoons.

Atmospheric oxygen built up in the early history of the Earth as the waste product of photosynthetic organisms and by burial of organic matter away from surficial decay. This history is documented by the geologic preservation of oxygen-sensitive minerals,
deposition banded iron formations, and development of continental "red beds" or BIFs. Figure from the University of Michigan's Introduction to Global Change web site.


[SIZE=+2]Atmospheric Structure[/SIZE]
Not only does the atmosphere have a relatively stable composition, but it also has a structure to it. Below are two figures from Lutgens and Tarbuck (The Atmosphere, 8th edition) showing vertical profiles of the atmosphere. Note that the first major break, or boundary in the atmosphere as we ascend is the tropopause.

http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfjps/1400/atmos_origin.html

How many more question do you have?

 

[AV1611VET]

/thread

 

[thaumaturgy]

/thread

What was it that did the thread in? Let's hold an inquest.

Was it an overdose of technical information?

That's got to be the most horrible way for a thread in a scientific discussion area to die. Science is so much more fun to discuss without resorting to "facts" and "information".

Or maybe it was the discussion of atheism using hypothesis testing formalisms.

Whatever it was, thank goodness we have AV1611VET to tell us when we've all gone too far.

 

[juvenissun]

No, because the moon doesn't have enough gravity to hold an atmosphere. CO2 and Methane are much stronger greenhouse gases than water vapor.

How many more question do you have?

My goodness, are you a student of ChordatesLegacy? I haven't seen this type of post since he was gone.

 

[Chalnoth]

So, is the composition of earth's crust your next challenge? And you think that it has to be pretty uniform in order to ... (what?)

It's not my "next challenge". It's why your claim that the average elevation has anything at all to say about the possibility of a global flood is nonsense. The fundamental reason why we have continental shelves and ocean beds is because the stuff that makes up the ocean beds is denser than the stuff that makes up the continental shelves. This is why the continental shelves float higher on the magma. As long as this is the case, it is simply impossible for the entire Earth to flood.

So, at a bare minimum, your absurd hypothesis that the average elevation of the Earth's crust is able to explain why there's enough water for a flood would require that the distribution of density on the Earth's crust was completely different than it is today. How is that even remotely possible?

 

[BananaSlug]

My goodness, are you a student of ChordatesLegacy? I haven't seen this type of post since he was gone.

Not really, but CL did provide lots of info with nice pictures and I've decided to do the same. It seems that most of the creationist posters here do not care whether you explain things to them simply or incredibly detailed. I know their are some lurkers on here who are really interested in things of this nature and want answers.

 

[juvenissun]

Not really, but CL did provide lots of info with nice pictures and I've decided to do the same. It seems that most of the creationist posters here do not care whether you explain things to them simply or incredibly detailed. I know their are some lurkers on here who are really interested in things of this nature and want answers.

Yeah. What you (and CL) did is good for information, but is not good for argument.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Yeah. What you (and CL) did is good for information, but is not good for argument.

This is correct. The way Juvenissun likes to "argue" is to make single-line, unsupported, unreferenced statements which invariably leads to arguments.

What scientists do (who are real scientists or teacher who are real teacher) is to provide:

1. Claim
2. Support
3. Evidence (citations, perhaps)
4. Explanation

If the goal is to just "shout each other down", then most Creationists have that covered. If, however, this is to be a scientific "discussion", then perhaps those who are actual scientists might know a thing or two about how to conduct such a discussion.

 

[juvenissun]

It's not my "next challenge". It's why your claim that the average elevation has anything at all to say about the possibility of a global flood is nonsense. The fundamental reason why we have continental shelves and ocean beds is because the stuff that makes up the ocean beds is denser than the stuff that makes up the continental shelves. This is why the continental shelves float higher on the magma. As long as this is the case, it is simply impossible for the entire Earth to flood.

So, at a bare minimum, your absurd hypothesis that the average elevation of the Earth's crust is able to explain why there's enough water for a flood would require that the distribution of density on the Earth's crust was completely different than it is today. How is that even remotely possible?

My first argument dealt with the claim that there is not enough water to do the global flood. Now we know there IS enough water. The next requirement is to lower the global relief so the water could extend to the land. That is what you are asking.

Regard to this problem (only), you need to know the "continent" on the earth is not always this much as it is today. According to the current understanding, it increased from 0% to the current 30%. So you can figure out the rest of the detail according to your understanding about the continent and the ocean.

 

[Chalnoth]

My first argument dealt with the claim that there is not enough water to do the global flood. Now we know there IS enough water.

No, there isn't, because the crust isn't uniform enough for the existing water to cover the entire surface.

Regard to this problem (only), you need to know the "continent" on the earth is not always this much as it is today. According to the current understanding, it increased from 0% to the current 30%. So you can figure out the rest of the detail according to your understanding about the continent and the ocean.

According to what current understanding? From where do we know this? What is the time scale you're talking about? What was the process that caused this increase from 0% to its current 30% land coverage?

I thought it was your goal here to teach?

 

[BananaSlug]

Yeah. What you (and CL) did is good for information, but is not good for argument.

Sorry about that but in debates about science slick rhetoric and quick wit does not "prove" your point. To back up my points I use evidence. Could I have simplyfied my point? Yes I could have but then I would not have been able to fully explain the facts. Evidence wins the argument in science.

 

[Chalnoth]

Sorry about that but in debates about science slick rhetoric and quick wit does not "prove" your point. To back up my points I use evidence. Could I have simplyfied my point? Yes I could have but then I would not have been able to fully explain the facts. Evidence wins the argument in science.

Indeed. And evidence should win arguments everywhere, else how can we possibly hope to arrive at the truth?

 

[AV1611VET]

Indeed. And evidence should win arguments everywhere, else how can we possibly hope to arrive at the truth?

We're already there ---

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

--- catch up, please.