More deceitfulness by CMI

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

More deceitfulness by CMI

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Mar 03, 2018 12:13 am

https://creation.com/permafrost

This is the 1995 paper the CMI geomorphologist alludes to (which is mentioned at the Wikipedia article the enquirer alludes to (footnote 27 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permafros ... ardini1995)):
file:///C:/Users/ash/Downloads/ADA295515.pdf

Its Conclusion reads as follows:
"The calculations and examples indicate that the growth of permafrost, with pure conduction heat transfer, is governed by the transient surface temperature, the geothermal heat flow and the soil thermal properties. Permafrost grows very rapidly for an initial phase and then asymptotically approaches a steady-state value after time spans of immense length. Very thick permafrost may have required the total Quaternary Period to form. It is likely that permafrost is not in equilibrium at most sites. The bottom growth and decay of permafrost are so slow that accurate methods of detecting which is occurring (or if equilibrium exists) are not available for the field. Permafrost less than 600 m can grow within 50,000 years, with surface temperatures only slightly lower than present values, but deeper permafrost depths require time scales of several ice ages and quite low temperatures to form."

Notice how CMI quote-mine from this to confuse the enquirer and make sure he carries on distrusting conventional mainstream science:
"The dates provided by Wikipedia are from research undertaken over 20 years ago, which noted that permafrost is affected by numerous factors, and that at depth the " … accurate method of detecting which is occurring (either growth or decay) are not available for the field." Yes, the paper suggested that it is difficult to identify whether deep permafrost at Prudhoe Bay (ie under Alaska rather than Siberia) is currently (in 1995) growing or decaying or whether it was in equilibrium. Yet the CMI reply, whilst correctly identifying what the paper was reporting, uses this to try and undermine 'uniformitarianism'. "The findings of this and other academic studies of permafrost and allied fields are challenged by the researcher’s prior acceptance of the uniformitarian principle." That is a questionable claim - since the Conclusion does refer to different growth rates at different depths and also states that the growth rate is governed by surface temperature (which has varied greatly over recent geological time). But of course YECs hate uniformitarianism (especially when it really is applied as with radioactive decay rates).

CMI then cite another almost 20 year old YEC article by their Michael Oard and try to use it to argue, unconvincingly, that "Had slow and continuous climatic change taken place over hundreds of thousands of years (or even hundreds of years) the [woolly] mammoth would simply have migrated. Instead, they are found in their millions and “some were entombed in a standing position”. This is solid evidence that the slow rates cited for permafrost development are not correct". It is not (rapid climate change could happen without a '6,000 year old Earth' though human influence then would have been absent). In truth, it's not known for sure why woolly mammoths went extinct - but this 2010 paper suggested that genetic changes could have been a key factor (rather than eg gradual or rapid climate change)
http://su.diva-portal.org/smash/record. ... d=gFwl5OC4
See also:
https://www.seeker.com/why-mammoths-bec ... 43446.html

But CMI claim: "In short, whilst we do not have specific articles on the formation of permafrost, or on its depth, what evidence is available clearly points towards rapid formation in the past, far more rapid than the rates cited from uniformitarian sources which are based on measurements in the present." Rubbish. And there is NOTHING in the Bible about ANY of this - even though woolly mammoth extinction and (usually) slow past climatic changes are both factual. CMI cannot explain this 'rapid formation' they are pushing (following a 'worldwide flood'). They CANNOT explain it because it never happened I suggest.

I am sending this link to CMI.

(Minor revisions, now finished, were made just after sending it.)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8634
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests