[Trollbait] Questions creationists can't answer?

This forum is for the discussion of the evidence for evolution. Anyone is welcome to post, however, scripture is not allowed. As the title says, Science Only please!

Moderator: Moderators

[Trollbait] Questions creationists can't answer?

Postby jon_12091 » Mon Dec 20, 2010 9:07 pm

Three questions straight forward questions that the creationist geologist should have an answer for:

Where is the idealised block model for the Flood, conventional geology has dozens of these for every conceivable depositional environment, but I've yet to see one for the Flood?
The example, to illustrate precisely what I'm talking about, below is from N. Eyles & C. Eyles (1992) Galcial Depositional Systems in Facies models: response to sea level change R.G. Walker and N. P. James (eds). Geological Association of Canada. P74.
Image

Why does the sequence stratigraphic model work? If the sediments deposited in basin are the product of a single global flood then why does a model that predicts multiple and sequential changes in environment based on fluctuations in sea level prove such a useful tool?

Primary hydrocarbon migration with rough estimates for rates of migration of between 8E-15 to 8E-14 m-3 m-2 s-1 how do you justify a young Earth?
Values taken from J.M. Vernweij (1993) Hydrocarbon Migration Systems Analysis, Developments in Petroleum Science 35. Elsevier. P118.
Last edited by jon_12091 on Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:24 am, edited 4 times in total.
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: [Trollbait] Questions creationists should be able to ans

Postby Michael » Mon Dec 20, 2010 10:14 pm

I stole this and put it on Premier for the expert geologist Garner to comment on.

If I am out of order I will remove it.
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: [Trollbait] Questions creationists should be able to ans

Postby jon_12091 » Mon Dec 20, 2010 10:19 pm

Michael wrote:I stole this and put it on Premier for the expert geologist Garner to comment on.

If I am out of order I will remove it.


No, I'm fine with that, the block diagram reference isn't to an appropriate standard, but I'll tweak that later. Also the hydrocarbon migration rates could probably do with being referenced as well.
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: [Trollbait] Questions creationists should be able to ans

Postby marcsurtees » Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:26 pm

jon_12091 wrote:Three questions straight forward questions that the creationist geologist should have an answer for:
Primary hydrocarbon migration with rough estimates for rates of migration of between 8E-15 to 8E-14 m-3 m-2 s-1 how do you justify a young Earth?
Values taken from J.M. Vernweij (1993) Hydrocarbon Migration Systems Analysis, Developments in Petroleum Science 35. Elsevier. P118.


Hi,
Sorry about responding on the "free for all" forum.

I will continue here.

I tried googling the above reference and got a web site that my anti virus suggested was dangerous.

Could you perhaps send me a link to the appropriate text or the original articles on rates of migration, so that I can respond to the data that this is based on?

Thanks.
Marc
_______________________________________________________
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing
— they believe in anything." (commonly attributed to) G.K. Chesterton
marcsurtees
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:05 pm
Location: Edinburgh

Re: [Trollbait] Questions creationists should be able to ans

Postby jon_12091 » Mon Jan 03, 2011 9:00 pm

J.M. Vernweij (1993) Hydrocarbon Migration Systems Analysis, Developments in Petroleum Science 35, is available in somewhat neutered form, through Google books, otherwise its the library I'm afraid, Amazon may also be worth a shot, but its hit and miss with technical science texts as to whether you pay a penny or near original RRP. Below is a handy link:
http://chentserver.uwaterloo.ca/aelkame ... roleum.pdf

Personally if I had a limited technical background I'd tackle question one first, but that's just my opinion!

Michael, did Garner:
(a) Ignore the questions
(b) Make up something on the fly
(c) Accuse you undermining the Gospel
(d) Waffle?
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: [Trollbait] Questions creationists should be able to ans

Postby Michael » Mon Jan 03, 2011 10:28 pm

Here's Garner's answers

Reply by Paul Garner on December 20, 2010 at 11:48pm
1) I see no reason why multiple sedimentary environments cannot be explained by processes occurring throughout the biblical earth history of ~6000 yrs. The flood itself was a highly complex event, with channelised flow and sheet flow, debris flows and turbidity currents, platform and slope deposits, megabreccias and mudstones, and so on. I suspect you have a very simplistic view of what it must have been like.



2) Sequence stratigraphy is very interesting to the creation geologist, for it reveals packages of genetically related strata that can be traced right across continents (unlike the more regional and basinal patterns that prevail today). Here we have important clues to flood depositional processes.



3) As for hydrocarbon migration, I'm not a petroleum geologist and so I would have to defer to other colleagues on that. I would be interested to see the assumptions that go into the modelling of hydrocarbon migration rates under different conditions. I have a paper on file, published in the journal of the Petroleum Exploration Society of Australia, which models the transfer of petroleum from source rocks into reservoir rocks by convective and advective processes and indicates pretty rapid rates.




► Reply to This


Upload Files

Attach File(s):


ENJOY
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: [Trollbait] Questions creationists should be able to ans

Postby jon_12091 » Tue Jan 04, 2011 10:32 pm

Michael wrote:Here's Garner's answers

Reply by Paul Garner on December 20, 2010 at 11:48pm
1) I see no reason why multiple sedimentary environments cannot be explained by processes occurring throughout the biblical earth history of ~6000 yrs. The flood itself was a highly complex event, with channelised flow and sheet flow, debris flows and turbidity currents, platform and slope deposits, megabreccias and mudstones, and so on. I suspect you have a very simplistic view of what it must have been like.

And.... how does that complexity prevent the construction of an idealised model? [Apart from the overwhelming desperation of creation geologists to not produce anything that remotely looks like a scientific model that could actually be tested in the field....]

2) Sequence stratigraphy is very interesting to the creation geologist,

Snort.... So interesting in fact that we've written nearly nothing about it, despite the fact the key concepts have been around since the mid to late 1970's (AAPG Memoir 26), and its still here despite the fact we prayed really hard that it would go away!
for it reveals packages of genetically related strata that can be traced right across continents (unlike the more regional and basinal patterns that prevail today). Here we have important clues to flood depositional processes.

Yes in some cases (No - Rift Valley, pretty much any pan continental river system you care to mention). And, oh really - see the immediately above comment!

3) As for hydrocarbon migration, I'm not a petroleum geologist and so I would have to defer to other colleagues on that. I would be interested to see the assumptions that go into the modelling of hydrocarbon migration rates under different conditions. I have a paper on file, published in the journal of the Petroleum Exploration Society of Australia, which models the transfer of petroleum from source rocks into reservoir rocks by convective and advective processes and indicates pretty rapid rates.

Yes, the rates look rapid, but do a back of the fag packet calculation for even a moderately sized oil field reservoir and an absolute minimum time period is at least one if not two orders of magnitude greater than the accepted age for a young Earth. As for the 'assumptions' yes there are some, but much it is controlled by fundamental chemical laws, chemical kinetics can be a stubborn bitch...

So essentially Garner has just skated over questions 1 and 2, and on number 3, the question he came closest to giving an actual answer for, its mainly just an admission that it goes beyond his knowledge, which fair play he admitted.

[EDIT]The technical response to Garner's attempt at Q2 would be to ask how he would put the five orders of cyclic sea level change, typically identified in sequence stratigraphy, into a young Earth context? It also worth pointing out that what Paul is actually talking about when he mentions "packages of genetically related strata that can be traced right across continents" is lateral, and possibly diachronous, changes in depositional environment, e.g. from off-shore marine sediments, to beach and delta deposits, to continental deposists. Not a sequence most of us would expect from a global flood event.
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: [Trollbait] Questions creationists can't answer?

Postby Dagsannr » Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:13 pm

Off topic from the geology here (which I tried once at uni and got lost, so it was back to friendly chemistry for me)...

My favourite question is the starlight one.

If the universe is only 6000-ish years old, how did starlight from stars more than 6000 light years away reach us?

To crowbar this anomoly into their theology it either implies that the gods created the universe looking older than it is (but god cannot lie and if looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...) or that the speed of light has varied in the past. (I'm ignoring the 'Earth is in the center of a massive gravitational dip' idea, as it's just geocentrism tarted up.)

Whilst the second option seems to be the one with most favour right now, altering the speed of light isn't just a case of light going faster, it would alter the fundamental ground rules upon which the universe operates and make it impossible to function at all. It's linked into such essential constants as energy and mass (as in the famous E=mc² equation).
There are 2 types of people in the world:

Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
Dagsannr
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:57 pm
Location: Carlisle

Re: [Trollbait] Questions creationists can't answer?

Postby Peter Henderson » Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:52 pm

The most coomon answer I've received recently is "a light year is a measure of distance, not time" so distant starlight isn't a problem.

I think D. Russel Humphreys' (along with John Hartnett) has caused quite a lot of damage to cosmology/astronomy. This crap is highly technical and quite difficult to answer. The only real reviews of the book that I've seen is from OEC Hugh Ross on the answers in creation website. It's constantly regurgitated by YECs to explain the distant starlight problem.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: [Trollbait] Questions creationists can't answer?

Postby jon_12091 » Sat Feb 05, 2011 6:36 pm

As Peter points out creationists do have an answer for the starlight problem - its total rubbish, but its an answer. I'm aiming to ask questions that they don't have answers for or perhaps don't want to answer!
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Question No. 4

Postby jon_12091 » Tue May 03, 2011 5:57 am

Would any creationists care to explain the presence of ooids in limestones in context of catastrophic sediment deposition?


And an epic geological fail -
http://creationwiki.org/Limestone
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: [Trollbait] Questions creationists can't answer?

Postby Michael » Tue May 03, 2011 6:22 am

Simples. They are the result of the Flood recorded in Genesis.

That is the complete explanation
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: [Trollbait] Questions creationists can't answer?

Postby Neil Davies » Tue May 03, 2011 8:27 am

I had a favourite argument about Noah's Ark - not sure if I can recall it correctly... also it assumes belief in Noah's Ark and also the acceptance of 'micro-evolution' which may or may not apply to creationists across the board.

Anyway, I think it went something like this - if the Noah's Ark story is true, then all the current diversity of life came from the small number of creatures that were saved on the Ark some 5,000 years ago. If you assume Noah had at least a breeding pair of every species we now know of, then the Ark could never have been big enough. The creationist counter to this of course is that Noah only had to have two of every 'kind' of animal on the Ark (although they never accurately define what 'kind' actually means, sticking with saying things like the tiger is a 'kind' of cat, as is a regular tabby etc) and then micro-evolution over the last 5,000 years has produced the current diversity.

Unfortunately for them, the diversity of species on the planet now is far too huge for the micro-evolution creationists accept to have produced it from any reasonable number of 'kinds' that could have fit on an Ark, which means to get an Ark that isn't the size of a large city creationists have to accept evolution can generate far greater diversity than just 'small' changes within a 'kind'. So if you believe that the Ark was populated with 'kinds' of creatures instead of species, you then also have to accept full-on 'macro' evolution. But if you accept evolution, the time scale required for it to generate the vast numbers of species is far greater than a mere few thousand years, so you've just disproven the Ark story.

So did the Ark carry species? It could never have been big enough. Did it carry 'kinds'? To accept that you have to accept evolution. Accept evolution? Disprove the story.

(Something like that, I can't remember exactly and it was a lot snappier than that long-winded explanation :lol:)
Neil Davies
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:49 am

Re: [Trollbait] Questions creationists can't answer?

Postby jon_12091 » Tue May 03, 2011 11:28 am

The problem in trying to tackle them on their own ground, so to speak, is that you tend to wind up with an internally mythos consistent answer, though usually its something they've just pulled from their fundament, and a creationist with a smug self-satisfied look on their face because they think they've just won. It it dosn't matter how bad the answer is found to be on futher analysis they've given you an 'answer'. I'm aiming at questions that tackle aspects of science, which creationism can't answer without discomforting themselves - even getting an admission that their hypothesis dosen't cover everything yet is spectacularly difficult (now ask a real scientist that question.....). I actually measure the success of these threads by the abscence of attempted responses......
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: [Trollbait] Questions creationists can't answer?

Postby Robert Byers » Wed May 04, 2011 6:14 am

I am a Canadian Evangelical christian YEC creationist.
Any block or sequence of layered sediment or rock fits fine with creationist models.
The one you showed i think is not rock but sediment. So it would be post flood and simply from layering events within a big or a few big events. Not the great flood which, as I see it, accounts only for below the k-t line. Only rock layers.
All that there is in the field is layers. everyone must account for the layers. We say it looks like just what it looks like. Layered sediment in flows during a major flooding flow.
Evolutionists say its from segregated flow events over great amounts of time.
Then we add we already have a witness.
our way is the simple and more likely way.
Robert Byers
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:07 am

Next

Return to Science Only

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron