A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, Earth and universe?

Creationist bloggers can be infuriating. If one has infuriated you by persisting in nonsense even when corrected, or refusing to reply to your criiticsm, you may feel driven to recording the fact. If so, you may register your disapproval here and hope a response is forthcoming.

Moderator: Moderators

Re: A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, Earth and universe?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Mar 14, 2013 1:01 pm

What would young Earth creationists say if NASA suddenly detected artificially generated radio signals from a solar system in a distant part of the Milky Way, say 50,000 light years from Earth (rather unlikely I admit)?

After all, in their worldview, intelligent life does not/cannot evolve - probably requiring millions of years minimum on a suitable planet - from microbes. Thus it must have been created there by God - at the same time as humanity was created according to scripture taken as literal history.

Any intelligent life elsewhere detected via either radio waves or by other means via spectroscopy (the latter would include microbes or other primitive forms) from this point in time onwards would have to be within 6,000 light years of Earth and to have been present on the planet concerned from the week of Genesis creation or very soon after. Any life detected tomorrow from a planetary system a little or much further away than 6,000 light years would have - if science knows anything - been around for longer than YEC Christians believe the universe has existed. (The same would have applied/did apply if - for sake of argument - another civilisation say 2,000 light years away somehow managed to have the know-how to send a radio signal not long after 'creation week' which (by sheer luck ie because of our location in the galaxy) reached Earth 5,000 years ago - but of course our ancestors weren't looking for extra-terrestrial radio signals and also had no way of searching/watching for such a thing.)

In the event of the 'jackpot' for SETI and NASA would the YECs admit that the universe is older than 6,000 years? Or claim that light must have travelled much much faster in the past? Or start to question the distance to the solar system in question? Or suggest that the signal must be 'natural' and argue that no intelligent life elsewhere has been detected or is seeking contact with other civilisations.

All hypothetical of course.

Unless we get another Wow signal and this time it persists. But I'm not holding my breath.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, Earth and universe?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Mar 14, 2013 4:54 pm

As sent:


http://creation.com/Flood-biogeography

"From a creationist point of view, though, it would seem perfectly reasonable to understand that there was a continuous plant and animal distribution linking these two parts of the world—but not of course millions of years ago, but in fairly recent history."

North America and Asia have never been joined together as part of the same landmass via a Bering Sea land bridge during the last 6,000 years. So your understanding falls FLAT.

Your 'recent ice age' hypothesising lacks ANY evidence whatsoever. Your timing is totally wrong. Look at the size of the Antarctic ice cap for instance.

"So it’s not difficult to imagine how animals could have migrated from Ararat to many places throughout the world." ONLY if what you are doing is faith-based conjecture, wishful thinking, and apologetics - and NOT science.

Do you have any observed SCIENTIFIC evidence suggesting a recent radiation of animal species in all directions from Ararat? For instance a greater range of species in that area than on the other side of the globe (I don't mean more endemism but more species)? I'm guessing NO. And what is now Turkey seems to have been on a coastal edge of Pangea rather than in a central part of the landmass prior to its break-up.

Unsolved mysteries for evolutionists do not prove young Earth creationism! Sorry.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, Earth and universe?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:00 pm

From a recent Journal of Creation paper by Stef Heerema (which I have not tried to read all through):
"Large formations of rock salt are found on every continent around the world. Oil and gas are often associated with salt deposits, which can rise kilometers above the top of the main underground salt body. These salt deposits are commonly referred to as “evaporites” because they are considered to have been formed by the evaporation of sea water. The evaporite model requires the evaporation of hundreds of kilometers of depth of seawater, a process that would require vast periods of time, far longer than the biblical timescale. Consequently evaporites have been used as an argument against young-earth geology. However, there are major problems with the evaporite model such that it is totally inadequate to explain the thickness, volume, structure and purity of salt deposits. A more feasible model regards salt deposits as the product of igneous halite magma. Such magmas melt at geologic temperatures, flow readily, and account for the association of salt deposits with reserves of coal, oil and gas."

Call me cynical but this looks and sounds like Double Dutch! Any comments?
http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/magmati ... ormations/

Tas Walker likes the model, however.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, Earth and universe?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:02 pm

The author's credentials?

"Stef Heerema received a Bachelor of aircraft engineering in
the Netherlands. He was involved in the installation of a salt
bath for heat treatment as well as being a sales representative
for steam installations. Later he was posted to the UK with
Urenco (uranium enrichment). With his consultancy, he
investigated the feasibility of new salt mine. He lectures on
the topic of salt formations and has written a book, The
Revolution Theory, which shows that the salt pillars around
the world can be explained by the interaction of a melted salt
magma with the waters of the worldwide Flood."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, Earth and universe?

Postby Michael » Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:04 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:The author's credentials?

"Stef Heerema received a Bachelor of aircraft engineering in
the Netherlands. He was involved in the installation of a salt
bath for heat treatment as well as being a sales representative
for steam installations. Later he was posted to the UK with
Urenco (uranium enrichment). With his consultancy, he
investigated the feasibility of new salt mine. He lectures on
the topic of salt formations and has written a book, The
Revolution Theory, which shows that the salt pillars around
the world can be explained by the interaction of a melted salt
magma with the waters of the worldwide Flood."


You can't be serious
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, Earth and universe?

Postby jon_12091 » Sat Mar 16, 2013 12:31 pm

Microbial mats - and Stef's theories do the intellectual version of an aeroplane going down in flames. Just because your a chemist or indeed a physicist does not mean you have a clue about geology.
'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: A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, Earth and universe?

Postby Brian Jordan » Sat Mar 16, 2013 1:46 pm

Michael wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:The author's credentials?

The Revolution Theory, which shows that the salt pillars around the world can be explained by the interaction of a melted salt magma with the waters of the worldwide Flood."
You can't be serious
Of course not. The obvious explanation is that Lot was polygamous.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, Earth and universe?

Postby Steve660 » Sat Mar 16, 2013 8:13 pm

Here's a debunking of Stef Hereema's article about salt. Didn't take me long to write - it was right up my street!

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j23_ ... 16-118.pdf

A magmatic model for the origin of large salt formations
Stef Heerema
JOURNAL OF CREATION 23(3) 2009
What a load of shite! I was almost cringing at the inanity of the first page alone. He can’t seem to make up his mind about whether the evaporation is of great depths (60 km, he says, in a blatant straw man misrepresentation) of sea water, or is in shallow seas (reality).
His four problems on the first page are:
1. A straw man
2. False
3. Irrelevant, brine is near-sterile, so one would not expect fossils.
4. Another straw man - the equator is too wet, salt deposits didn’t form there.
On his second page his numbered points can easily be answered:
1. (and Table 1). Anything hot enough to melt NaCl would decompose the hydrous minerals carnallite and bischofite. So they should be absent. But they occur in association with large NaCl deposits.
2. Anhydrite is an evaporite itself and is deposited early, along with gypsum, owing to its lower solubility. Calcite has multiple origins, including evaporitic. He does not say how or why his model should create these minerals, or where they come from.
3. It should be “silicate” not “silica” magmas, and layering in salt deposits follows solubility, not melting point.
4. What volcanoes are near the Dead Sea? It and the Danakil deposits are in depressions with no outflow, and in arid climates. Exactly where evaporites should be.
5. Natrocarbonatites probably form by segregation from alkaline nephelinites. Heerema has no mechanism for the origin of his salt magma.
6. Salt traps oil and gas because it is impermeable. He presents no evidence for his alleged association between salt and coal. If true why are plant remains so rare in rock salt?
His table lists “magnesium salt” for anhydrous MgCl2. In reality, although this has been claimed as the mineral chloromagnesite, its existence in nature is unconfirmed and considered doubtful. As mentioned in point 1 above, anything hot enough to melt salt would decompose the hydrous Mg chloride minerals generating HCl gas and magnesium oxide. Magnesium oxide occurs rarely as the mineral periclase, but in metamorphic rocks, not evaporites.

“the idea that the deposits were formed by the evaporation of hundreds of kilometers of depth of seawater is totally inadequate to explain the thickness, volume, structure and purity of salt deposits” Pure bullshit. Shallow seas constantly replenished by influxes of salt water over long periods (ie. 100s of 1000s, or more, years) are more than adequate.

“the model that has the deposits resulting from the generation of large volumes of molten salt “magma” explains the evidence”.
It does not explain why evaporites, when not subsequently remobilised by diapirism, consistently only ever occur in sedimentary rocks associated with shallow marine and/or arid surface environments. Not igneous ones. It does not explain desiccation cracks and pseudomorphs after salt crystals in these sedimentary rocks indicating periods of drying out. Or plant spores, blown in by the wind. Or why zoning in the deposits follows solubility. Or the absence of feeder dykes. Or the absence of periclase formed by thermal decomposition of the hydrous Mg chlorides. Or absence of gas bubbles so common in lavas. Or the presence of minerals that would be decomposed or dehydrated by the heat of molten NaCl. Or the isotopic signatures that indicate a marine origin. Some evaporite minerals, like the Mg sulfates, have no melting point. They decompose when heated. They can ONLY be formed from aqueous solution, thus ruling out a magmatic origin.

The only time I have seen rock salt that genuinely was molten, is in the Kilroot salt mine, Carrickfergus, where a Tertiary basalt dyke cut across the salt bed and, at the contact, for a few cm, the salt was recrystallized and fibrous. I have a piece in my mineral collection, and I donated another to the National Museum in Dublin. It is quite different in texture to the bulk rock salt.

It is not surprising Tasman Walker liked this piece of chemical and mineralogical crap. It is exactly like the trite, superficial, made-up nonsense that he writes.

“Heerema received a Bachelor of aircraft engineering in the Netherlands” – blurb at end of the article.
I am “an inorganic chemist with a PhD from Edinburgh University and an accomplished mineral collector” – Paul Garner on his blog.
I would not presume to rewrite swathes of aircraft engineering. But Heerema presumes to rewrite simple inorganic chemistry and a big chunk of mineralogy.
Steve660
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: Cheshire

Re: A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, Earth and universe?

Postby Michael » Sat Mar 16, 2013 8:52 pm

Brian Jordan wrote:
Michael wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:The author's credentials?

The Revolution Theory, which shows that the salt pillars around the world can be explained by the interaction of a melted salt magma with the waters of the worldwide Flood."
You can't be serious
Of course not. The obvious explanation is that Lot was polygamous.


You mean he had a Lot of wives, I take that with a pillar of salt
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Would YECs prefer not to discuss where comets come from?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Mar 16, 2013 8:55 pm

I have certainly gained that impression from perusing articles, most of which are around ten years' old, on that general topic on the AiG and CMI websites in particular (also my copy of Sarfati's 'The Greatest Hoax on Earth?').

The YEC strategy appears to be to play down the number of comets out there (including ones as yet unobserved by humanity), question the existence of the Kuiper Belt and Scattered Disk or else question whether these are a repository for both Jupiter-type and Halley-type short period comets, and seek to persuade their supporters that the Oort Cloud is a fiction invented by evolutionist scientists (and not the source of long period comets - which YECs doubtless think are 'new' anyway).

There are many Jupiter-type comets and these orbit at close to the ecliptic ie with low inclination. There are also some Halley-type comets, some of which have a high inclination ie close to 90 degrees. It's thought these may originally have formed in the Oort Cloud (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halley's_Comet; also I think the Scattered Disk is more or less in the same orbital plane as the eight solar system planets). It would seem odd that comets could come towards the Sun from due north or due south if none came from the proposed (spherical) Oort Cloud surrounding the solar system.
http://www.physics.ucf.edu/~yfernandez/cometlist.html

As well as short period or periodic comets:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_periodic_comets
There are also lots of long period comets on record:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_no ... dic_comets
Including PanSTARRS which I have yet to see due to persistent cloud each evening this week. It has approached Earth and the Sun from almost due south.

This is interesting too:
http://www.astro.uu.se/~bjorn/eng_comet.html

Short period comets tend to have lower orbital eccentricity than long period ones - which normally have a parabolic orbit (eccentricity of almost 1.0) or even a hyperbolic orbit (eccentricity above 1.0). With some exceptions, from the first link above the Halley-type comets appear to have a more eccentric orbit than the Jupiter-type comets.

At TalkOrigins an article remarked that comets we have seen do not all appear to be at the same stage in their life cycles (thought to last a few thousand, perhaps ten thousand years or 1,000 perihelion approaches towards the Sun, before their volatile materials become exhausted - though it's thought some long period comets may only last for nearer 50 plus perihelion approaches, perhaps because these draw closer to the Sun on average though I'm guessing here).

YECs appear from their silence or evasiveness to think that there aren't all that many comets and that they are distributed randomly in the solar system, perhaps wandering around aimlessly but usually choosing to come towards the Sun sooner or later so that if a comet exists humankind will usually notice it.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, Earth and universe?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Mar 17, 2013 12:14 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3206
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... rnalSearch
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4 ... s2516.html

Presumably this extinct camel - apparently camels originate in the North American continent and this one has been found in northern Canada - really lived in a time when temperatures were warm (similarly dromedary camels today live in places where temperatures are warm).

What would a YEC say? That this species (and the land it was on) migrated from Ararat to the Arctic in the post-Flood radiation of 'kinds', aided by 'catastrophic plate tectonics'?

Well, I suppose if a camel went to the Arctic - thinking it was heading for somewhere warm - and then there was a 'rapid ice age' as YECs insist there was less than 4,300 years ago, that might 'explain' the species' extinction. (Even if a giant camel would have had a smaller surface to volume ratio which helps in keeping warm - and bactrian camels - extra hump - today spend winters in the Gobi desert.)

Look forward to this week's 'News to Note'.



At last a mention:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... e-03162013 (item 2)
"The camel got its new start in the world when it got off of Noah’s Ark, less than 4,500 years ago." And this giant camel species, or its ancestors, managed to get to Ellesmere Island (before going extinct) even though - assuming it walked to eastern Asia - there has been NO land bridge between Russia and Alaska in the last 4,500 years (and probably no ice bridge either).
Is it called the 'ship' of the desert because it swam across to north America? And then also swam to Ellesmere Island?
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, Earth and universe?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Mar 18, 2013 4:16 am

If YECs thought that they could get away with denying that there were ever ice ages (because the Bible fails to mention them) they would deny them - but they couldn't get away with such denial. Thus we get this unmitigated garbage from them:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... al-history
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, Earth and universe?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Mar 18, 2013 5:40 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:If YECs thought that they could get away with denying that there were ever ice ages (because the Bible fails to mention them) they would deny them - but they couldn't get away with such denial. Thus we get this unmitigated garbage from them:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... al-history


http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com ... e-ice-age/
(As flagged by Adam Benton on his blog.)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, Earth and universe?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Mar 18, 2013 5:49 pm

http://evoanth.wordpress.com/2013/03/18/3625/
I've just added a comment, flagging that Ken Ham 'primitive man' video that I've just linked to in another thread.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, Earth and universe?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Mar 18, 2013 5:55 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:If YECs thought that they could get away with denying that there were ever ice ages (because the Bible fails to mention them) they would deny them - but they couldn't get away with such denial. Thus we get this unmitigated garbage from them:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... al-history


http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com ... e-ice-age/
(As flagged by Adam Benton on his blog.)



I see that James McGrath has also pitched in on the latest AiG (unscriptural) ice age history denial and fictional interpretation of the evidence.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringo ... onism.html
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

PreviousNext

Return to Conversations with Creationists

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron