Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Walt Brown's super-tectonics
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 91 of 307 (76330)
01-02-2004 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by johnfolton
01-02-2004 9:28 PM


Re: The oceans aren't salty enough for an old Earth?
You do realize, Whatever, that the amount of aluminum dissolved in the oceans compared to the amount entering each year from rivers PROOVES that the oceans are about 100 years old? That's using the identical logic that the YEC sites that are fibbing to you use. This means, now, that Columbus walked over to the New World and made up that stuff about the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria. And don't even get me started on Moby Dick....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by johnfolton, posted 01-02-2004 9:28 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by johnfolton, posted 01-03-2004 1:43 AM Coragyps has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 92 of 307 (76343)
01-03-2004 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Coragyps
01-02-2004 10:32 PM


Re: The oceans aren't salty enough for an old Earth?
I thought aluminum salts were used to settle colloidals, etc...higher concentrations probably exists in the sediments, explaining present Oceans having low aluminum salt solute concentrations, etc...the problem with the dilution factors & mixing, with all the mineral salts that stay in solution, from the rivers, etc...its increases in the in the present is immeasurable, however, fresh water would of subducted under the saltier waters, it would take time for it to mix, for the oceans surface solute levels to change, likely it mixed from the bottom up, given fresh water settles in salty waters, etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Coragyps, posted 01-02-2004 10:32 PM Coragyps has not replied

Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 93 of 307 (76364)
01-03-2004 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by johnfolton
01-02-2004 9:28 PM


Re: The oceans aren't salty enough for an old Earth?
whatever wrote:
"JonF, I think the dilution factor makes it hard
to cipher how long it would take to increase all
the mineral salts in the ocean's,..."
If a person would read a basic text on oceanography, they would find that the dilution factor is simply not a problem as Mr. whatever incorrectly claims. There is more than enough data available concerning the composition of the ocean, such that the variations in composition of seawater can be determined on a global basis and the total volume of salt and various elements can be calculated. Also, there is enough data available in the scientific literature about inputs and outputs that they can be calculated on an approximate basis. The so-called "dilution factor" is a non-existent problem to those people, who take the time to research this subject.
Go look through:
Holland, H. D., 1978. The Chemistry of
the Atmophere and the Oceans, (New York:
John Wiley and Sons).
Holland, H.D., 1984. The Chemical Evolution
of the Atmosphere and the Oceans, (Princeton:
Princeton University Press).
Mr whatever also wrote:
"however, were talking of volcanic mineral
salt additions, even the dust of the earth
in the form of rain, don't see how salt is
recycling back out of the oceans, they
really can only get saltier, the
hydrological cycle, etc...like they don't
come out of solution unless they become
super saturated, etc..."
What Mr. whatever stated above is simply not true. There are various outputs, mechanisms by which salt leaves the ocean, as described in detail by Glen Morton in "Salt in the sea" at:
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199606/0051.html
These outputs are:
1. Sea spray 6.7 x 10^10 kg/yr
2. Cation Exchange 5.2 x 10^10 kg/yr
3. Burial of pore water 3.9 x 10^10 kg/yr
4. Halite deposition 4.0 x 10^10 kg/yr
5. Alteration of Basalt 14 x 10^10 kg/yr
6. Albite formation 0 kg/yr
7. Zeolite Formation .2 x 10^10 kg/yr
8. Biogenic output .5 x 10^10 kg/yr
9. Collective Small outputs 3.6 x 10^10 kg/yr
Total amount of salt removed from oceans is 38.1 x 10^10 kg/yr.
The total calculated by Glen Morton in this article is, within the error bars of the estimates and calculations, identical to the influx of sodium that one Young Earth creationist used, 35.6 x 10^10 kg/yr. The amount of salt going into the ocean is the same as the amount being removed from it. This renders any attempts to date the age of the oceans by the amount of salt in it an exercise in futility and self-delusion. Similar calculations and conclusions can be found in:
Cook, M. A. 1966. Prehistory and Earth Models
Max Parrish & Company, Ltd., London. 353 pages.
Dalrymple, G. Brent. 1984. "How Old is the Earth?
A Reply to Scientific Creationism" Proceedings
of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific
Division, American Association for the
Advancement of Science, Volume 1, Part 3,
edited by Frank Awbrey and William Thwaites,
April 30, 1984, pages 66-131.
Also, see:
1. Claim CD221:
CD221: Amount of dissolved minerals in oceans
2. 4. Accumulation of metals into the oceans
The Age of the Earth
3. Salt, Meteors and the Global Flood
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/saltandmeteors.htm
Yours,
Bill Birkeland

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by johnfolton, posted 01-02-2004 9:28 PM johnfolton has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by JonF, posted 01-03-2004 11:58 AM Bill Birkeland has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 94 of 307 (76368)
01-03-2004 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Bill Birkeland
01-03-2004 11:13 AM


Re: The oceans aren't salty enough for an old Earth?
Dalrymple, G. Brent. 1984. "How Old is the Earth?
A Reply to Scientific Creationism" Proceedings
of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific
Division, American Association for the
Advancement of Science, Volume 1, Part 3,
edited by Frank Awbrey and William Thwaites,
April 30, 1984, pages 66-131.
Bill, do you know of a source for this? Been looking for it for years, and can't even find it in the MIT libraries ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Bill Birkeland, posted 01-03-2004 11:13 AM Bill Birkeland has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Joe Meert, posted 01-03-2004 12:46 PM JonF has replied

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 95 of 307 (76376)
01-03-2004 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by JonF
01-03-2004 11:58 AM


Re: The oceans aren't salty enough for an old Earth?
His book "the Age of the Earth" contains a more detailed discussion of the evidence for an old earth. It's quite a readable book even for those with little training in geology and radiometric dating.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by JonF, posted 01-03-2004 11:58 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by JonF, posted 01-03-2004 1:04 PM Joe Meert has not replied

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 96 of 307 (76377)
01-03-2004 12:52 PM


Walt Brown's 'theory'
I find it fascinating how people are drawn into Walt Brown's ideas on the basis of religious beliefs when Walt tries to claim that his ideas are independent of religion. This is patently false. If there was no global flood in Genesis, there would be no hydroplate 'theory'. Strictly speaking, Walt's idea is not a theory, it's closer to a hypothesis but the best description is 'wild speculation'. Suppose, for example, that the bible described destruction of the earth via a global fire. The 'hydroplate theory' would not exist and would be replaced by some conjecture regarding catastrophic volcanism. Walt has refused to publish his ideas in scientific journals (see Walt Brown ). He has also refused to honor his debate challenge (see same page). Walt's out to make money in the name of Jesus. Nothing more, nothing less.
Cheers
Joe Meert

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 97 of 307 (76378)
01-03-2004 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Joe Meert
01-03-2004 12:46 PM


Dalrymple
His book "the Age of the Earth" contains a more detailed discussion of the evidence for an old earth.
Yes, I have that, and have read it thoroughly through. From the many references to the 1984 paper that I've seen, it appears that there's stuff in the paper that is not in the book.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Joe Meert, posted 01-03-2004 12:46 PM Joe Meert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by johnfolton, posted 01-03-2004 6:56 PM JonF has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 98 of 307 (76425)
01-03-2004 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by JonF
01-03-2004 1:04 PM


Re: Dalrymple
Its interesting that you all feel the earth is old, but then again what can I say, the bible itself testifies the heaven and the earth were created in the beginning, and that one thousand years is like a night watch to the Lord, etc...
P.S. The bible says the earth was void and without form kjv genesis 1:2, sounds a bit like Europa, a small frozen moon of Jupiter, void and without form, granted its much smaller than the earth, however, before God caused the sun to be a star, likely this is what the earth looked like, etc... Astronomy for Kids - The Moons of Jupiter, the bible infers that after God caused the sun to be a star on the first creation day, 13,000 years ago, the first thing he did after causing the sun to go nucleur, was to divide the waters above the firmament kjv genesis 1:7, {the open firmament that the bird flew kjv genesis 1:20}, and below the firmament(pre-flood seas, rivers, etc...), the waters that evaporated to form this water canopy would of left behind their mineral salts, explaining the massive salt deposits found, that were covered by the sediments of the world flood, under the mediterranean sea, and other parts of the world, salt domes, etc...
[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-03-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by JonF, posted 01-03-2004 1:04 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Bill Birkeland, posted 01-03-2004 11:54 PM johnfolton has replied

lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 307 (76435)
01-03-2004 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by johnfolton
01-02-2004 6:26 PM


Re: How Could Saltwater and Freshwater Fish Survive the Flood?
whatever:
Coragyps, However they reproduce, its interesting they are found all over the earth, thus their dispersement is related in some way to the waters, or they wouldn't beable to spread around the earth, etc...
Coral animals reproduce by squirting eggs and sperm into the water around them. The sperm then finds the eggs, and the eggs hatch into swimming "planula" larvae that look like flattened blobs. These larvae then feed and search for some good place to become an adult coral animal.
Such swimming larvae are common among marine invertebrates, check out this gallery of larvae. Note how different they look from their adults. A nauplius (crustacean larva) looks vaguely like a tiny shrimp, but the others...
... if this hydrologic water cycle existed for billions of years, even the sea spray washes back into the oceans, so why is the oceans only 3.6 % mineral salts, for it should be a whole lot more salt, as all salts dilute into the sea.
There are processes that remove minerals froms seawater.
(stratified oceans...)
This does not seem like some raging flood.
(a lot of stuff about adapting to different salinities...)
Except that many sea animals are not nearly so adaptable. Fish are sometimes called "osmoregulators", because they actively regulate their bodies' osmotic pressure, meaning that some fish can go between fresh and salt water without trouble. But even then, many fish get "spoiled", becoming adapted to some osmotic pressure, such as that of typical freshwater or typical saltwater.
Many marine invertebrates are even worse -- their bodies' osmotic pressure tracks that of the surrounding seawater, making them "osmoconformers". They are thus vulnerable to salinity changes. This may be why there are no freshwater echinoderms; it may be too difficult for them to cope with the lowered salinity.
P.S. The bible says the earth was void and without form kjv genesis 1:2, sounds a bit like Europa, a small frozen moon of Jupiter, void and without form, granted its much smaller than the earth,
Except that it looks like it has plenty of "form" to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by johnfolton, posted 01-02-2004 6:26 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by johnfolton, posted 01-03-2004 10:51 PM lpetrich has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 100 of 307 (76440)
01-03-2004 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by lpetrich
01-03-2004 10:16 PM


Re: How Could Saltwater and Freshwater Fish Survive the Flood?
God is explaining no life existed before God created life on this earth, it was void of life, its surface were desolate, etc...
without form: From an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), that is, desert; etc...
void: From an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, that is, (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin:
kjv Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form,8414 and void;922 and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
H8414
to^hu^
to'-hoo
From an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), that is, desert; figuratively a worthless thing; adverbially in vain: - confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness.
H922
bo^hu^
bo'-hoo
From an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, that is, (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin: - emptiness, void.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by lpetrich, posted 01-03-2004 10:16 PM lpetrich has not replied

Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 101 of 307 (76443)
01-03-2004 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by johnfolton
01-03-2004 6:56 PM


Re: Dalrymple
whatever wrote:
"ts interesting that you all feel the earth is old,
but then again what can I say, the bible itself
testifies the heaven and the earth were created
in the beginning, and that one thousand years
is like a night watch to the Lord, etc..."
It is not a matter of "feeling" anything. It is a matter
of looking at facts and observations and using
basic prionciples of physics, chemistry, etc to make
solid interpretations about what they mean in
terms of Earth History. It is the ultimate in "Crime
Scene Investigations" and detective work in using
one's brain to understanding what has happened
in the past instead of mindlessly quoting words
from the Bible to justify preconcieved beliefs that
are based upon a very falliable, human interpretation
of the Bible falsely presumed to be God's truth.
If the best a person can come up with as arguments
for their interpretation of Earth History are Bible quotes
and Walt Brown's technobabble, then Young Earth
creationism, as science is in a very sad state of
disrepair.
The fact of matter is that there is nothing in the Bible
that "testifies" to a Young Earth and Walt Brown's
point of view. This so-called "testimony" is nothing
more than a specific and narrow interpretation of
what is written in the Bible by all too, falliable humans.
At this point in time, I have yet to see Mr. whatever offer
any credible support that the way he and Mr. Brown,
both fallible humans capable of making mistakes in
their interpretations of the Bible, interpret the Bible
has any valdity and is even close to approaching
God's truth in any fashion.
Yours,
Bill Birkeland

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by johnfolton, posted 01-03-2004 6:56 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by johnfolton, posted 01-04-2004 1:37 AM Bill Birkeland has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 102 of 307 (76446)
01-04-2004 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Bill Birkeland
01-03-2004 11:54 PM


I wasn't aware that Walt debates theology, however, it is interesting how the hydroplate theory is based off science, not fantasy, etc...
P.S. The bible does testify that the fossils are young, and given 50 year old lava rocks sent by Dr. Andrew Snelling, dated millions of years old, infers that the argon potassium dating method which infers that no argon is in newly formed lava rocks is flawed, or that the argon potassium dating half life scale is rigged so all rocks will date millions of years old, meaning the paleontologists rely on your faith that you can date the rocks, and not the fossils remains, to determine fossil age, etc...Its like whats wrong with teaching our children Intelligent design, given toe has no evidence it answers origin, or that the fossils are old, etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Bill Birkeland, posted 01-03-2004 11:54 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by JonF, posted 01-04-2004 9:13 AM johnfolton has replied
 Message 105 by JonF, posted 01-04-2004 11:24 AM johnfolton has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 103 of 307 (76452)
01-04-2004 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by johnfolton
01-04-2004 1:37 AM


The hydroplate theory is fantasy. We have demonstrated that with evidence and references; you have done nothing but assert that it's science. It isn't.
You know nothing of potassium-argonm dating, or the far-more-widely-used isochron dating and concordia-discordia dating methods. If you wish to claim that all radioisotope dating is wrong, start a thread in the appropriate forum.
Snelling does know, and he uses that knowledge to construct invalid tests that do not reflect the capabilities of the method. This is documented at many places, e.g. DR. SNELLING'S "RADIOACTIVE 'DATING' FAILURE". Just like Hovind, he lies and he knows it.
Your accusation "the argon potassium dating half life scale is rigged so all rocks will date millions of years old" is a serious canard against thousands of honest and hard working men and women. Retract it (or provide evidence for it, which I know you can't).
Sorry to say this, you're an ignorant fool who wants to wallow in ignorance.
[This message has been edited by JonF, 01-04-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by johnfolton, posted 01-04-2004 1:37 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by johnfolton, posted 01-04-2004 11:18 AM JonF has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 104 of 307 (76462)
01-04-2004 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by JonF
01-04-2004 9:13 AM


The tectonic plate theory doesn't hold water for rock to subduct without fracturing, the hydroplate theory for the trench formation is a scientific principle, the trenches formed suddenly, as the lavas outflowed unto the floor when the mid-ocean ridges rose, the trenches wrinkled inward, the tectonic plates are floating on fractured rock and water is supported by the evidence of the hydrothermal venting that there is water under the tectonic plates, rock simply will not move against rock, it need a hydraulic agent, and the super deep wells drilled, the russian kola well, the german well, even the deep oil well's all testify that water exist deep in the earth, the tectonic plates say the plates move on liquid rock, however what they are finding in them super deep well's scientifically support's Walts hydroplate theory, in that under the mantle its fractured with water filling the voids, and water under pressure is a perfect hydraulic medium, but then again its only a theory, however, the tectonic plate theory, defy the natural laws of science that the plates are moving on liquid rock when the evidence in the natural testify that water exist deep in the earth, the hydro-plate theory agrees the plates are moving, as basalt fills in the fractures but disagree, that the trenches are still subducting, and it is interesting that all your evidence for plate spreading is not coming from the trenches, so your actually supporting Walts theory that the plates are floating, and nothing proving that the tectonic plates are subducting, you all talk about how it happens at as fast as your finger nail grows, and well Walt has no problem that the plates are moving toward the trenches, simply that they are not subducting any more, however this nail paced movement is responsible for the earth quakes in the trenches, etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by JonF, posted 01-04-2004 9:13 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by JonF, posted 01-04-2004 11:33 AM johnfolton has replied
 Message 109 by roxrkool, posted 01-04-2004 2:07 PM johnfolton has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 105 of 307 (76463)
01-04-2004 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by johnfolton
01-04-2004 1:37 AM


Let's get back to the topic
The bible does testify that the fossils are young
Irrelevant in a scientific discussion. This thread is not about religious beliefs. If you want to discuss religious beliefs, start a new thread in an appropriate forum.
This discussion has wandered pretty far from the topic. I'm surprised the moderators haven't intervened. It's turned into a Gish Gallop wherein whatever makes ludicrous claims without support, we point out the problems with those claims, and whatever ignores the problems and goes on to the next claim.
whatever, please go back to Walt Brown's claims. In particular, you have not replied to this message or this message or this message about the magnetic stripes, or this message or this message or this message. And "The Bible says ..." is not appropriate anywhere in this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by johnfolton, posted 01-04-2004 1:37 AM johnfolton has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024