Exposing the lies in Jorge's Flood "evidence".

[logician bones]

You can easily research that on your own, Roy. Maybe I will later, but it would save me a lot of time if we have a ground rule that easy research like that should be done by those having the question -- you, in this case. Research this on creation.com (I generally prefer that source so I'd recommend starting there), find some of their most-cited cases, and then look into an OE argument for it.

Again, I can do all this myself, but it takes time and I can't do everything all at once. Basically I had wondered if OEs here already had good answers to it. It seems not, so far.

The rest of your reply gives the usual bald assertions. And no, as pointed out earlier, the widespread flat layer boundaries are not just a lack of OE evidence, but a feature that is positive evidence of the YE case -- akin to a fingerprint.

[TheLurch]

And, again, the OE view is that it had a long time to warm, but in the YE view, the fact that it is still cool is obviously expected.

No, with the young earth view, you'd expect the majority of the plate would still be at the temperature of the ocean floor, because it's had, in geological terms, essentially no time to equilibrate. It's not at that temperature, so this is not what should be expected.

Of course, your use of the term "obviously expected" is the give away. You obviously expect that the young earth view will be compatible with the data, regardless of what the data is. So much so, you can't even see when that view would obviously predict something other than what's seen, as is the case here.

Also, if i did the math on heating rocks, would you accept it as a fatal problem for a young earth?

[Roy]

I've actually seen YE sources that go into more detail, with actual evidences, beyond just the raw data that is neutral to both views (which the YEs hardly need to repeat).

So you keep saying - but since you have never provided an example, there's no reason to believe you.

That's conflating data with interpretation. The periodic table, like the actual geological features, are data. The old Earth (surface) is interpretation -- interpretation with some powerful evidence, yes, but still not the same thing. The point is, there actually was not a large amount of telling detail in there [Edit: Actually, it would be even more accurate to say there were no details that appeared telling at all for an OE.], compared to the telling details in YEC sources I've seen.

But still haven't provided an example of.

You can easily research that on your own, Roy. Maybe I will later, but it would save me a lot of time if we have a ground rule that easy research like that should be done by those having the question -- you, in this case.

I prefer the ground rule that the burden of providing evidence for a claim is on the person making the claim - which is you.

I'm not going to waste my time searching for something I have never seen and do not believe exists.

You claim to have seen many YEC articles containing detailed stratigraphal analysis.
You haven't produced a single one.
Until you do, your claim and any similar claims you make can be immediately dismissed as being unsupported.

The rest of your reply gives the usual bald assertions. And no, as pointed out earlier, the widespread flat layer boundaries are not just a lack of OE evidence, but a feature that is positive evidence of the YE case -- akin to a fingerprint.

Except (as demonstrated even earlier, starting with post #1 in this thread) the supposed "widespread flay layer boundaries" are just another regurgitated YEC lie.

[HMS_Beagle]

You can easily research that on your own, Roy. Maybe I will later, but it would save me a lot of time if we have a ground rule that easy research like that should be done by those having the question -- you, in this case. Research this on creation.com (I generally prefer that source so I'd recommend starting there), find some of their most-cited cases, and then look into an OE argument for it.

Again, I can do all this myself, but it takes time and I can't do everything all at once. Basically I had wondered if OEs here already had good answers to it. It seems not, so far.

The rest of your reply gives the usual bald assertions. And no, as pointed out earlier, the widespread flat layer boundaries are not just a lack of OE evidence, but a feature that is positive evidence of the YE case -- akin to a fingerprint.

LB can you please provide your YEC explanation for the K-Pg (formerly known as the K-T) boundary layer? It's the thin layer of iridium found all over the Earth and dates to 66 MYA.

SIA2751.jpg

The scientific explanation consilient with all the evidence is that it was deposited from the ejecta of the asteroid which hit at Chicxulub and took out the dinosaurs 66MYA. Thanks in advance.

[Roy]

LB can you please provide your YEC explanation for the K-Pg (formerly known as the K-T) boundary layer? It's the thin layer of iridium found all over the Earth and dates to 66 MYA.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]21105[/ATTACH]

The scientific explanation consilient with all the evidence is that it was deposited from the ejecta of the asteroid which hit at Chicxulub and took out the dinosaurs 66MYA. Thanks in advance.

Don't you know? It was caused by volcanic iridium rain and meteorite impacts making clay fall from the sky during lulls in the flood when dinosaurs made tracks, built nests and laid eggs. It's been addressed in detail in countless YEC articles which you can easily find yourself so there's no need to provide any links.

[logician bones]

No, with the young earth view, you'd expect the majority of the plate would still be at the temperature of the ocean floor, because it's had, in geological terms, essentially no time to equilibrate. It's not at that temperature, so this is not what should be expected.

I see. That's fairer. Do you have some citations of the numbers to prove this?

Of course, your use of the term "obviously expected" is the give away. You obviously expect that the young earth view will be compatible with the data

That's actually fair too. It's been a long time since I've seen such seemingly good arguments, and I've seen so many good ones for the YE, it's easy to slip into expecting it to be true somehow anyways, since on subject after subject that has been repeatably true upon further investigation. The discussion in this topic (and some in the prior) has illustrated that. But nevertheless, methodologically at least, it's always important to consider each argument on its own merits, and be open to the possibility that it could overturn everything.

(And really it should go far beyond just methodology.)

All I really meant in that case, though, was that it's expected that it wouldn't be entirely equalized yet. And this still does seem like a good pro-RS evidence. Let's dig in (when we have time) to the math on that if we can (raincheck for today, unfortunately, and probably the rest of this week but we'll see). Keep in mind as a layman it's rare that I can get into the exact numbers, especially since it can depend on so many factors. So to me I see a possibly good argument based on the concept itself. But still have to hold it in doubt because of uncertainty whether the numbers (on either side) have really been properly vetted.

Also, if i did the math on heating rocks, would you accept it as a fatal problem for a young earth?

Depends on if that's the sound conclusion. Throw it at me and I'll do my best to judge it.

What about the YE evidences cited so far? Would you do the same? Pick one and work through it.

I prefer the ground rule that the burden of providing evidence for a claim is on the person making the claim - which is you.

That actually fails here, because you have made claims yourself without backing them up, expecting me to do your homework for you. And when I did, twice now your argument failed upon inspection. Given your bad track record on that, it's more than fair to expect you to do what you yourself claimed you did -- research. And to show some of another thing you claimed to have -- some honesty.

To be fair, in general I agree with you, but you said you have the time and interest to research, so why not live up to it?

If you actually don't have the time, though, it's alright. Just a request to save some time.

I'm not going to waste my time searching for something I have never seen

LOL. Wow. Okay, I was just thinking you were being fair. Then you said that.

Dang, son.

You want to reconsider that wording??

and do not believe exists.

You claim to have seen many YEC articles containing detailed stratigraphal analysis.
You haven't produced a single one.

Still waiting on you to define "detailed" in a useful way..........

And I still said that it isn't as much detail.

Until you do, your claim and any similar claims you make can be immediately dismissed as being unsupported.

I mentioned that some were brought up in past discussion, Roy. You're the one in trouble in this regard here, especially since your blatantly false claim turned out to be that, about what that AiG article was saying. I've backed up actual claims I've made as far as I recall. To be fair, though, I forget now how I worded this. You've been harping on it without substance for so long I mostly remember you informing me that I claimed something. What I recall is noticing some site-specific ones (I thought you began by saying there were none, but I've seen some, and have pointed out an example in reply to you already, brought up in previous discussion, the Green River case), and that they seemed like persuasive levels of detail to make the case. But again, Roy, everything is always held in doubt in case it's overturned.

Except (as demonstrated even earlier, starting with post #1 in this thread) the supposed "widespread flay layer boundaries" are just another regurgitated YEC lie.

Where and how exactly has this been demonstrated?? I've read every post in here, and every attempt so far has either:

1) Committed the fallacy of pointing to positive evidence of some erosional features, rather than explaining the vast regions without them which was the problem (so the response does not address the argument, and in fact attacks a silly strawman that the Flood would have no erosional features except at the top, which I've debunked in detail).

2) Simply denied the evidence.




Beagle, the iridium layer was discussed previously. Basically, there are a few layers, some not as thick below that one, and all of these are interpreted (in at least one article I found) as building up during lulls in the onset period. The big one you're discussing is seen as evidence for the main "lull" at the end of the main onset period; this is why it is above dinosaur fossils etc.

I thought I saved the link to that article but apparently not. Just search iridium on CMI and you should find it.

And thank you for a polite question that did make the basic argument for the OE interpretation.


LOL @ Roy. Nah, I'd rather see if you guys can do homework LOL. But if you don't, maybe I will later. I'm actually working on a database to collect these sources, but it's a WIP.

[shunyadragon]

I see. That's fairer. Do you have some citations of the numbers to prove this?



That's actually fair too. It's been a long time since I've seen such seemingly good arguments, and I've seen so many good ones for the YE, it's easy to slip into expecting it to be true somehow anyways, since on subject after subject that has been repeatably true upon further investigation. The discussion in this topic (and some in the prior) has illustrated that. But nevertheless, methodologically at least, it's always important to consider each argument on its own merits, and be open to the possibility that it could overturn everything.

(And really it should go far beyond just methodology.)

All I really meant in that case, though, was that it's expected that it wouldn't be entirely equalized yet. And this still does seem like a good pro-RS evidence. Let's dig in (when we have time) to the math on that if we can (raincheck for today, unfortunately, and probably the rest of this week but we'll see). Keep in mind as a layman it's rare that I can get into the exact numbers, especially since it can depend on so many factors. So to me I see a possibly good argument based on the concept itself. But still have to hold it in doubt because of uncertainty whether the numbers (on either side) have really been properly vetted.



Depends on if that's the sound conclusion. Throw it at me and I'll do my best to judge it.

What about the YE evidences cited so far? Would you do the same? Pick one and work through it.



That actually fails here, because you have made claims yourself without backing them up, expecting me to do your homework for you. And when I did, twice now your argument failed upon inspection. Given your bad track record on that, it's more than fair to expect you to do what you yourself claimed you did -- research. And to show some of another thing you claimed to have -- some honesty.

To be fair, in general I agree with you, but you said you have the time and interest to research, so why not live up to it?

If you actually don't have the time, though, it's alright. Just a request to save some time.




LOL. Wow. Okay, I was just thinking you were being fair. Then you said that.

Dang, son.

You want to reconsider that wording??




Still waiting on you to define "detailed" in a useful way..........

And I still said that it isn't as much detail.





I mentioned that some were brought up in past discussion, Roy. You're the one in trouble in this regard here, especially since your blatantly false claim turned out to be that, about what that AiG article was saying. I've backed up actual claims I've made as far as I recall. To be fair, though, I forget now how I worded this. You've been harping on it without substance for so long I mostly remember you informing me that I claimed something. What I recall is noticing some site-specific ones (I thought you began by saying there were none, but I've seen some, and have pointed out an example in reply to you already, brought up in previous discussion, the Green River case), and that they seemed like persuasive levels of detail to make the case. But again, Roy, everything is always held in doubt in case it's overturned.




Where and how exactly has this been demonstrated?? I've read every post in here, and every attempt so far has either:

1) Committed the fallacy of pointing to positive evidence of some erosional features, rather than explaining the vast regions without them which was the problem (so the response does not address the argument, and in fact attacks a silly strawman that the Flood would have no erosional features except at the top, which I've debunked in detail).

2) Simply denied the evidence.




Beagle, the iridium layer was discussed previously. Basically, there are a few layers, some not as thick below that one, and all of these are interpreted (in at least one article I found) as building up during lulls in the onset period. The big one you're discussing is seen as evidence for the main "lull" at the end of the main onset period; this is why it is above dinosaur fossils etc.

I thought I saved the link to that article but apparently not. Just search iridium on CMI and you should find it.

And thank you for a polite question that did make the basic argument for the OE interpretation.


LOL @ Roy. Nah, I'd rather see if you guys can do homework LOL. But if you don't, maybe I will later. I'm actually working on a database to collect these sources, but it's a WIP.

There is a problem of citing AIG articles with bizzaro explanations for geologic formations and erosion, which are not acceptable in real science. What is lacking in this thread and many other threads addressing Creationism views is peer review scientific research and articles from legitimate journals that support these claims.

Responses that argue that AIG articles on their own 'address these problems with viable alternative explanations,' just simply are not legitimate.

[logician bones]

Actually in many cases the YEC articles will have footnotes to those PRed sources (usually secular), and some YEC sources are PRed. Nor are your own posts peer-reviewed, keep in mind. He asked how they see the iridium, and that's the answer. But no, as far as I recall, it wasn't a journal article.

Edit: Not sure why you said AiG, though. The AiG article I'm talking about there was cited by Roy, not me. I just reviewed it to see if it really said what he claimed (it said the opposite and gave a powerful case for it). The last part of my reply was about a CMI article (of course, they started out as AiG, so whatever).

Also... it isn't really "bizarre" as far as I know that during a lull period, things like ash would have time to settle. It seems pretty self-evident to me. It's not the OE view, but it's invalid to judge its "bizarreness" on those grounds, since obviously the YE view =/= the OE.

[TheLurch]

I see. That's fairer. Do you have some citations of the numbers to prove this?

What about the YE evidences cited so far?

I'm doing the math to support my position. You can either do the same for yours, or admit you are choosing to believe it without knowing whether there's any evidence to support it.

[logician bones]

[Edit: This was cross-posted with the above. Will read that and reply after this.]


Real quick, wanted to ask Lurch:

Have you actually investigated the runaway subduction model in detail? This will matter for the reliability of your math; if not, please let me know now so I can start reviewing it myself. If so, maybe I won't need to.

My main question is how you factor for the effect of the deformation of the whole plate as it rapidly subducts. Had you factored for that prior to my asking now?

If not, do you know how to factor for it?

[TheLurch]

Have you actually investigated the runaway subduction model in detail? This will matter for the reliability of your math; if not, please let me know now so I can start reviewing it myself. If so, maybe I won't need to.

The runaway subduction model is a physical impossibility. There is no way to account for it.

[logician bones]

Have skimmed the math. Some of it could use some elaboration, and unsure how to go about actually applying it. But it's a good start. Questions:

1) Still wondering everything in the above post that I submitted before your reply came through, so please answer those.

2) Since you're presenting this as a proof, I'm assuming you've actually found the map; can you show it to me? But this next comment makes me wonder:

all the heat is essentially coming in from a single direction (underneath).

That's not at all consistent with the map I believe I recall. But could be wrong. We'll need to see that.

3) What's the basic depth in the mantle (related to the above)? The main issue in previous discussion was a dramatic difference in mantle temperature between deeper and shallower mantle.

4) Where is the proof of prior mantle temps surrounding the material in question?

So, it takes a long time for the heat to make its way from the bottom of the plate (where it's in contact with the mantle) to the top. Which will slow the process down considerably.

?? This wording really gives the impression you're not talking at all about what I am... This even sounds like plate material that hasn't even subducted at all or is just below the subduction line.

Also, the upper mantle, where the plate would be sitting

Whoa there... "would be" implies you didn't read what I said in my recent post about this. Just to reiterate to be crystal clear, the main issue from prior discussion was what the depth actually was. I had pointed out that I thought I recalled seeing it as a very low depth, not at all in the upper mantle, but could be wrong. (Esp. since I failed to find the map last time I searched for it.) Sigh @ schedule. I really want to search for it again... You seem committed to this, so it may be worth the time investment. But I really am late on a lot of things I should stop delaying... sigh... I'll try real quick, though. Really wish I had started this database years ago LOL...

Yeah, your final line strongly implies you're attacking a strawman. (Or hopefully you just didn't realize we weren't talking about normal subducted plate material.)

[logician bones]

The runaway subduction model is a physical impossibility. There is no way to account for it.

Could you please answer the questions? That is the issue being discussed; it needs to be shown, if so. Yes or no; have you actually investigated the model? This is obviously important to avoid attacking strawmen. (Even accidentally.)

Actually, new question -- what do you mean by "no way to account for it"?

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=logician bones;420612]Actually in many cases the YEC articles will have footnotes to those PRed sources (usually secular), and some YEC sources are PRed. Nor are your own posts peer-reviewed, keep in mind. He asked how they see the iridium, and that's the answer. But no, as far as I recall, it wasn't a journal article. [/quote[

So far from what I read this is false, and unsupported.

Edit: Not sure why you said AiG, though. The AiG article I'm talking about there was cited by Roy, not me. I just reviewed it to see if it really said what he claimed (it said the opposite and gave a powerful case for it). The last part of my reply was about a CMI article (of course, they started out as AiG, so whatever).

Also... it isn't really "bizarre" as far as I know that during a lull period, things like ash would have time to settle. It seems pretty self-evident to me. It's not the OE view, but it's invalid to judge its "bizarreness" on those grounds, since obviously the YE view =/= the OE.

IT is not supported that the ash would selectively settle in this manner in any possible flood scenario. I am a geologist with specialties in environmental geology and geomorphology, and can easily support the conclusion that this extremely bogus science. The problem with the OEC view is there remains no consistent evidence of any sort of flood on a world nor regional scale that would fit the objective physical evidence.

I can easily judge the AIG articles and conclusions as indeed extremely 'bizzaro' by legitimate scientific research articles, because. Selectively citing legitimate scientific support articles with illegitimate articles supporting a Creationist agenda.

[TheLurch]

Could you please answer the questions? That is the issue being discussed; it needs to be shown, if so. Yes or no; have you actually investigated the model? This is obviously important to avoid attacking strawmen. (Even accidentally.)

Actually, new question -- what do you mean by "no way to account for it"?

I have, and i did some math in the earlier discussion, and others have done more math elsewhere. There is no source of energy on the earth sufficiently large to move tectonic plates at any reasonable speed. The plates themselves would shatter under the stress of the movement - that is, except for the fact that the energy released by their rapid motion would cause them to melt entirely, turning the Earth's surface into a liquid magma ocean.

Even if the earth's surface managed somehow not to melt, the energy released in the earthquakes it would trigger would wipe everything off its surface. The giant Japanese earthquake of 2011 involved only 2.4 meters of motion in a limited physical area, and the devastation it caused was staggering and widespread. And that was sufficient to wrench the entire Earth's axis by 25cm.

Do that with all the plates globally, with constant stop-and-start motion every time they tried to subduct a seamount, and you just wreck everything.


Fortunately, the energy to move the plates like that simply doesn't exist, so it'll never happen, and can never have happened.


EDIT: incidentally, that WASN'T the question that was being asked. The question was about the existence of partially melted plate remnants near subduction zones. You know, those things that are only possibly consistent with an ancient earth.