Moon recession and unjustified extrapolation

[HMS_Beagle]

I've interjected brief comments on each of your items above.

I appreciate the effort that you're making. You just need to go deeper. Everything that you've listed above has been addressed and answered many times by BC scientists. Just to get you started, I'll select one: the ice cores. Here's some material:

http://www.icr.org/article/8026/
http://www.icr.org/article/ice-cores-age-earth/
http://creation.com/do-greenland-ice...-annual-layers
http://creation.com/greenland-ice-co...hic-deposition

These are just four - dozens more are available.
There's plenty out there, Lurch, you just have to look.
The case against Biblical Creationism isn't as "solid" as they have led people to believe.

Jorge

Argument by web link is prohibited by Campus Decorum rules Jorge. Make your case in your own words, use links for support if necessary.

[Roy]

Are they really annual under all circumstances?

No, they [ice cores and varves] are not annual under all circumstance. Some are tidal, some are lunar, some are due to irregular flooding or evaporation or storms. But it's not particularly difficult to determine which layers are or are not annual - you just have to watch them for a few years or match them up against other events known to be annual or historically dated. Also, the people who carry out such work are generally intelligent, and so aren't prone to making stupid blunders like this:

The Lost Squadron Planes, found only 50 years later, were in ice/snow indicating many hundreds of years of ice/snow layers.

Those planes landed on a glacier. Where the ice moves. Those planes weren't only found under hundreds of feet of ice, they were found kilometres downstream of where they landed. The ice above them didn't consist of hundreds of ice layers, or even fifty ice layers, but a jumbled mass of moving glacial flow. And if that isn't enough, the variation in annual snowfall across Greenland is so high that there's no simple correlation between depth and age that applies across the whole island; and anyway the planes would have sunk through the glacier as it moved due to their higher density. Trying to measure the age of those planes based on the amount of ice covering them would be like trying to measure precipitation by dropping a rain-gauge in a river.

Roy

[lilpixieofterror]

"Science" as it has been used for over two centuries is NATURAL science as per textbook definitions. If you're gonna apply the etymological "scientia" it can apply to ANY knowledge. But that's NOT what this forum is about, and it's NOT what we mean when try to get Jorge to answer scientific questions.

Jorge has effected a VERY OBVIOUS case of the Fallacy of Equivocation. The absolute worst case of this is when a YEC uses the AKJV 1611 translation of I Tim 6:20.

And I was simply pointing to the readers to beware his debate strategy.

K54

P.S.

The other fallacies Jorge commits stand as I indicated.

Pix, the term for what we now called Natural Science was initially "Natural History."

From what I've read, the term 'science' was indeed used to describe philosophy as well is what we today would call science too (see this definition here and look at number 7 on the Word English Definition entry). Words to change their meaning and that word is rarely associated with anything, but the natural sciences today, but he is technically correct. Remember, I don't often defend Jorge and would rather not either, but we need to ensure our criticisms of him are correct and are based on factual arguments. He is technically correct on his usage, but should make it clear he isn't referring the more generalized and far less common definition.

[klaus54]

From what I've read, the term 'science' was indeed used to describe philosophy as well is what we today would call science too (see this definition here and look at number 7 on the Word English Definition entry). Words to change their meaning and that word is rarely associated with anything, but the natural sciences today, but he is technically correct. Remember, I don't often defend Jorge and would rather not either, but we need to ensure our criticisms of him are correct and are based on factual arguments. He is technically correct on his usage, but should make it clear he isn't referring the more generalized and far less common definition.

He is NOT technically correct in modern sense (the past two hundred years). Why would you want to support him when he's equivocating on the definition in order the deceive others (as well as himself?)

In order to discuss data about the age and history of the Cosmos, Earth, and biosphere we have to use NATURAL science -- scientific method. Conflating this with a different definition of "science" involving philosophy and metaphysics will cause complete confusion.

Do YOU have a suggestion about broaching these issues using Jorge's use of "science"?

If it involves "literal" Genesis exegesis in the sense of mapping the text to the physical world in a manner that concords with the pile of evidence, then he can't even do that! He squawks about being true to God's Word and uses the term Biblical Creationism, yet is not even able to articulate its mapping to reality.

If he wants to discuss metaphysics and philosophy, he should do it on a different forum.

K54

[Jorge]

No, they [ice cores and varves] are not annual under all circumstance. Some are tidal, some are lunar, some are due to irregular flooding or evaporation or storms. But it's not particularly difficult to determine which layers are or are not annual - you just have to watch them for a few years or match them up against other events known to be annual or historically dated. Also, the people who carry out such work are generally intelligent, and so aren't prone to making stupid blunders like this:Those planes landed on a glacier. Where the ice moves. Those planes weren't only found under hundreds of feet of ice, they were found kilometres downstream of where they landed. The ice above them didn't consist of hundreds of ice layers, or even fifty ice layers, but a jumbled mass of moving glacial flow. And if that isn't enough, the variation in annual snowfall across Greenland is so high that there's no simple correlation between depth and age that applies across the whole island; and anyway the planes would have sunk through the glacier as it moved due to their higher density. Trying to measure the age of those planes based on the amount of ice covering them would be like trying to measure precipitation by dropping a rain-gauge in a river.

Roy

I duly appreciate that you have helped me support my claims on this matter.

Jorge

[Jorge]

He is NOT technically correct in modern sense (the past two hundred years). Why would you want to support him when he's equivocating on the definition in order the deceive others (as well as himself?)

In order to discuss data about the age and history of the Cosmos, Earth, and biosphere we have to use NATURAL science -- scientific method. Conflating this with a different definition of "science" involving philosophy and metaphysics will cause complete confusion.

Do YOU have a suggestion about broaching these issues using Jorge's use of "science"?

If it involves "literal" Genesis exegesis in the sense of mapping the text to the physical world in a manner that concords with the pile of evidence, then he can't even do that! He squawks about being true to God's Word and uses the term Biblical Creationism, yet is not even able to articulate its mapping to reality.

If he wants to discuss metaphysics and philosophy, he should do it on a different forum.

K54

Stop spouting your ignorance so loudly, will ya!

If you inject Materialistic religious ideology into your "science", then I'll call you out on it every time and twice on Sundays. Also, why do you get so upset when we do it only to greedily do it from the Materialistic side every chance you get? Yeah, that word you like to toss out - "hypocrite" - you need to turn it on yourself.

Cease and desist your pompous ignorance - you're making yourself look pitifully poor.

Jorge

[lilpixieofterror]

He is NOT technically correct in modern sense (the past two hundred years). Why would you want to support him when he's equivocating on the definition in order the deceive others (as well as himself?)

Because, there is plenty of wiggle room and that definition can be used, all depending on who is using. Besides, I did not write the dictionary and that is just what it says, in black and white. If you want to give Jorge the whole 9 yards, you need to ensure there is no room to wiggle and there is plenty of room to wiggle.

In order to discuss data about the age and history of the Cosmos, Earth, and biosphere we have to use NATURAL science -- scientific method. Conflating this with a different definition of "science" involving philosophy and metaphysics will cause complete confusion.

Only if you're not aware of the definitions present or are not able to spot when somebody is using a more arachic, but technically correct definition.

Do YOU have a suggestion about broaching these issues using Jorge's use of "science"?

Attack his poor arguments and support. Word usage has plenty of wiggle room.

If it involves "literal" Genesis exegesis in the sense of mapping the text to the physical world in a manner that concords with the pile of evidence, then he can't even do that! He squawks about being true to God's Word and uses the term Biblical Creationism, yet is not even able to articulate its mapping to reality.

If he wants to discuss metaphysics and philosophy, he should do it on a different forum.

While again true, topics are going to bleed over. Just the nature of the world.

[klaus54]

I duly appreciate that you have helped me support my claims on this matter.

Jorge

If you cannot or will not recognized that Roy did NOT support your claims on this matter, then you are either profoundly stupid or profoundly mendacious.

Which is it?

K54

[klaus54]

Stop spouting your ignorance so loudly, will ya!

If you inject Materialistic religious ideology into your "science", then I'll call you out on it every time and twice on Sundays. Also, why do you get so upset when we do it only to greedily do it from the Materialistic side every chance you get? Yeah, that word you like to toss out - "hypocrite" - you need to turn it on yourself.

Cease and desist your pompous ignorance - you're making yourself look pitifully poor.

Jorge

Why don't you start your own thread (or better, Forum) -- perhaps call it NON-ORTHODOX SCIENCE, where you can discuss your personal definition of "science" -- perhaps call it "Science Falsely So-Called" and show that IT is consilient with a 6Ka Earth and Cosmos including ALL the geologic, astronomical, and biological evidence.

K54

[klaus54]

Because, there is plenty of wiggle room and that definition can be used, all depending on who is using. Besides, I did not write the dictionary and that is just what it says, in black and white. If you want to give Jorge the whole 9 yards, you need to ensure there is no room to wiggle and there is plenty of room to wiggle.



Only if you're not aware of the definitions present or are not able to spot when somebody is using a more arachic, but technically correct definition.



Attack his poor arguments and support. Word usage has plenty of wiggle room.



While again true, topics are going to bleed over. Just the nature of the world.

There is no "wiggle room" on scientific method. If a datum doesn't fit an hypothesis, the scientist has to figure out why or tweak or dismiss the hypothesis.

And if you could comprehend the tremendous amount of data from geology alone (more of my area) you would not talk about "wiggle room", at least not to fit all that time and history into 6Ka like Jorge wants to but can't.

The only alternative to the modern discipline of geology with deep time, plate tectonics. weathering and erosion, etc. is some form of Omphalos - which I believe STONGLY that Jorge wants to avoid.

I appreciate you trying to be an apologist for and show some tenderness fo Jorge who is being battered from pillar to post in his "science" (or more properly, lack of any), but it really, really isn't going to help this discussion other to make Jorge more recalcitrant in his bloviating ignorance.

K54

[klaus54]

Stop spouting your ignorance so loudly, will ya!

If you inject Materialistic religious ideology into your "science", then I'll call you out on it every time and twice on Sundays. Also, why do you get so upset when we do it only to greedily do it from the Materialistic side every chance you get? Yeah, that word you like to toss out - "hypocrite" - you need to turn it on yourself.

Cease and desist your pompous ignorance - you're making yourself look pitifully poor.

Jorge

Explain YOUR version of "science" that is NOT materialistic. In particular, explain how it's methodology differs from scientific method?

Put up or shut up.

K54

[lilpixieofterror]

There is no "wiggle room" on scientific method. If a datum doesn't fit an hypothesis, the scientist has to figure out why or tweak or dismiss the hypothesis.

You're right, there isn't, but definitions are not science and are must more fluid and often times less defined than a scientific theory would be that sometimes even the dictionary can not cover them all.

And if you could comprehend the tremendous amount of data from geology alone (more of my area) you would not talk about "wiggle room", at least not to fit all that time and history into 6Ka like Jorge wants to but can't.

And that is totally irrelevant to the world of a definition, which isn't nearly as set in stone (pardon the pun) as a scientific theory would be. You really have to work quite hard to even try to make the evidence look like a young earth, but the same isn't true for a definition of a word. Which can actually have some variance among definitions, even among individuals that speak the same language.

The only alternative to the modern discipline of geology with deep time, plate tectonics. weathering and erosion, etc. is some form of Omphalos - which I believe STONGLY that Jorge wants to avoid.

Which is again irrelevant to the definition of a word.

I appreciate you trying to be an apologist for and show some tenderness fo Jorge who is being battered from pillar to post in his "science" (or more properly, lack of any), but it really, really isn't going to help this discussion other to make Jorge more recalcitrant in his bloviating ignorance.

And that would be wrong. I have really no desire to defend Jorge from anything. He made his bed, he can sleep in it, but we need to be sure we have Jorge on sold grounds and a definition of a word isn't nearly as sold as scientific evidence is.

[klaus54]

We ARE using solid scientific evidence, unless you want to niggle about the definition of "solid". The main strength of evidence for Deep Time and History is that it fits together consiliently within a "naturalistic" paradigm --- regardless of how one defines "science"

Evidence is evidence and when most of the evidence fits into a materialistic model, that model is likely to be true - regardless of how one defines or even uses the word "science". Heck, call it "Globbity Glork Method" if you want.



K54

P.S. This post is in reply to post #222 by LilPix.

[TheLurch]

I've interjected brief comments on each of your items above.
Can you observe one kind of creature (e.g., a theropod) becoming another (e.g., a bird)? Can you test a macroevolutionary event? Can you verify a macroevolutionary event?

We cannot re-observe any event that happened in the past, and all scientific experiments - even the particle collisions in the LHC - involve some degree of reconstructing the past. This works because past events have consequences that persist to the present. The Higgs decays to particles that are stable enough for us the observe. Evolutionary events leave traces in the anatomy and genomes of existent species and, in many cases, fossils. Each genome we sequence is a verifiable test of evolutionary relationships.

Others have pointed out why the Lost Squadron isn't a useful argument over ice cores. Scientists aren't idiots, and they did a lot of preliminary work to determine the best locations for the ice cores - ones that showed little sign of disturbance by movement.

Accurate timing for all KNOWN dates in the past (where a direct correlation can be made). Beyond that it all relies on the assumption that things in the (more distant) past were just as they are today - what if they weren't? I say they weren't - there was a discontinuity that changed everything.

It's not an assumption. Multiple samples, from around the world, formed by different mechanisms and made of different materials, all tell the same story. If you want to argue for a big discontinuity, then you need to come not only with evidence in its favor, but also evidence that all these other samples don't say what we think they say. If there were a half-dozen or so timed series like this, your job might not be so hard. But you've got your work cut out for you.

That is only true within a paradigm that feeds off of itself - it is self-verifying and circular. One of the reasons why a "convergence" in different sources is found is precisely because of this.

Paradigms have nothing to do with it. Radioactive decay rates aren't a paradigm - they're something we can measure. Tree rings aren't a paradigm. Sediment layers aren't a paradigm. Ice cores aren't a paradigm. Individually, there's nothing circular about any of them. The fact that they all tell the same story speaks to consistency, not circularity

I appreciate the effort that you're making. You just need to go deeper. Everything that you've listed above has been addressed and answered many times by BC scientists. Just to get you started, I'll select one: the ice cores. Here's some material:

Although it's apparently against TW decorum to argue via links, i've gone through each of these. In general, i find them to be inconsistent with what you're arguing for. You're looking for science to be verifiable. These authors are complaining about the scientific process of verification - of using results from multiple records to spot inconsistencies, and trying to understand how these inconsistencies came about, and what we can learn from them. The one paper they cite repeatedly was simply the first one to evaluate the chronology of a single Greenland core, and say "there's a few problems on a first pass, but they're very few, and we can focus on these places in the core to understand what happened." (that's me paraphrasing - the actual quote is "Since these discrepancies are localized, resolving them may be far easier than if large sections of both cores required reexamination.") Somehow, in the hands of these authors, this is turned into an indictment of the entire scientific process.

There are a couple of other problems with the authors' understanding of ice cores (oxygen isotope changes aren't the only indication of periodicity, they only focus on a single core from Greenland when we have ice cores from multiple other locations, including ice caps outside the polar regions, etc.)

But the striking thing about this is the alternative they propose. We have evidence of multiple glacial periods; they think there's only one. We have evidence that the last one ended about 10,000 years ago; they suggest that it ended only 4,000 years ago, within the realm of recorded history (you'd think the Minoans might not have built their ports on the present coast, what with water levels having been 70m lower during the ice age). We have evidence that ice ages last 10s of thousands of years; they think that this one came and went in 700.

IThe case against Biblical Creationism isn't as "solid" as they have led people to believe.

No one has led me to believe anything. I'm a trained scientist - i'm capable of evaluating evidence. The last ice age dropped a huge boulder near where i grew up in New Jersey, and there are glacial features all over New York and New Jersey, put in place by the last ice age. Do you really believe 700 years is enough time for glaciers from Canada to spread as far south as NJ, moving enormous boulders in the process, and then retreat back the way they came? Do you realize just how much of an energy imbalance that would place in the entire Earth system?

We can ball park it. The Laurentide ice sheet, one of the larger ones in the glacial period, is estimated to be 26,000,000 cubic kilometers. That's 2.65 x 10^27 grams of ice. Melting a gram of ice requires 334 joules. that's 9 x 10^29 joules - we're ball parking, so let's call it 10^30. That's more than every single bit of energy produced by the Sun in a second.

The Earth receives 4.5 x 10^-10 of that output. Conveniently, that's roughly cancelled out by the number of seconds in 300 years (9 x 10^9). And 300 years is a generous estimate of how long the melting took (300 years to form, 100 years to move rocks around, 300 years to melt) under the creation model. So, the ballpark is that every single bit of energy sent to the Earth by the Sun was somehow absorbed (i.e., not reflected back into space by all that ice) and used to melt the ice.

Oh, wait - i forgot - there were other ice sheets in Europe and the Southern Hemisphere. Guess it doesn't work.

So, as a scientist, i see the case against at least this form of Biblical Creation being pretty airtight.

[Jorge]

We cannot re-observe any event that happened in the past, and all scientific experiments - even the particle collisions in the LHC - involve some degree of reconstructing the past. This works because past events have consequences that persist to the present. The Higgs decays to particles that are stable enough for us the observe. Evolutionary events leave traces in the anatomy and genomes of existent species and, in many cases, fossils. Each genome we sequence is a verifiable test of evolutionary relationships.

If you want to get really nit-picky-technical then everything we observe is a past event (light takes time to reach our eyes, sound to reach our ears, etc.). Let's not get carried away, okay? I explicitly stated in previous posts that extrapolation is fine TO A CERTAIN POINT. If we have to go too far and/or if we have reason to suspect that there is a game-changer discontinuity then extrapolation is not just unwarranted, it is very likely a blunder. I've been through all of this and don't enjoy having to repeat myself.

Others have pointed out why the Lost Squadron isn't a useful argument over ice cores. Scientists aren't idiots, and they did a lot of preliminary work to determine the best locations for the ice cores - ones that showed little sign of disturbance by movement.

I used the Lost Squadron as an illustration, not as definitive proof.

It's not an assumption. Multiple samples, from around the world, formed by different mechanisms and made of different materials, all tell the same story. If you want to argue for a big discontinuity, then you need to come not only with evidence in its favor, but also evidence that all these other samples don't say what we think they say. If there were a half-dozen or so timed series like this, your job might not be so hard. But you've got your work cut out for you.

Not only is it an assumption, it is an assumption provably in error.

Paradigms have nothing to do with it. Radioactive decay rates aren't a paradigm - they're something we can measure. Tree rings aren't a paradigm. Sediment layers aren't a paradigm. Ice cores aren't a paradigm. Individually, there's nothing circular about any of them. The fact that they all tell the same story speaks to consistency, not circularity

Do you understand the concept of a paradigm? Also, have you ever slowed down to examine how exactly each of those things that you list are supposed to work? For example, you just don't pull out a core of sediments and find a date - e.g., July 8, 1834 AD - attached to each layer. And, yes, I would agree that in some cases in the relatively recent past we are able to correlate a layer with an event. Why? Because we have multiple verifiable sources the confirm the event and its effects. However, as I grow weary of saying, we cannot do that beyond a certain point after which it becomes pure speculation/assumption all based on some worldview-paradigm. To Wit: provide a layer from, say, (allegedly) 250,000 BC and correlate it to something for which a demonstrable-verifiable date exists without circularity or reliance on a questionable reference. Go ahead - I challenge you.

Although it's apparently against TW decorum to argue via links, i've gone through each of these. In general, i find them to be inconsistent with what you're arguing for. You're looking for science to be verifiable. These authors are complaining about the scientific process of verification - of using results from multiple records to spot inconsistencies, and trying to understand how these inconsistencies came about, and what we can learn from them. The one paper they cite repeatedly was simply the first one to evaluate the chronology of a single Greenland core, and say "there's a few problems on a first pass, but they're very few, and we can focus on these places in the core to understand what happened." (that's me paraphrasing - the actual quote is "Since these discrepancies are localized, resolving them may be far easier than if large sections of both cores required reexamination.") Somehow, in the hands of these authors, this is turned into an indictment of the entire scientific process.

There are a couple of other problems with the authors' understanding of ice cores (oxygen isotope changes aren't the only indication of periodicity, they only focus on a single core from Greenland when we have ice cores from multiple other locations, including ice caps outside the polar regions, etc.)

Just forget the links. [sigh ...]

But the striking thing about this is the alternative they propose. We have evidence of multiple glacial periods; they think there's only one. We have evidence that the last one ended about 10,000 years ago; they suggest that it ended only 4,000 years ago, within the realm of recorded history (you'd think the Minoans might not have built their ports on the present coast, what with water levels having been 70m lower during the ice age). We have evidence that ice ages last 10s of thousands of years; they think that this one came and went in 700.

No, you do not have "evidence" that ice ages last 10s of thousands of years. You cannot state as "factual evidence" what you first need to demonstrate. Your so-called "evidence", I would say, is not evidence at all (except to those predisposed to believe it).

No one has led me to believe anything. I'm a trained scientist - i'm capable of evaluating evidence. The last ice age dropped a huge boulder near where i grew up in New Jersey, and there are glacial features all over New York and New Jersey, put in place by the last ice age. Do you really believe 700 years is enough time for glaciers from Canada to spread as far south as NJ, moving enormous boulders in the process, and then retreat back the way they came? Do you realize just how much of an energy imbalance that would place in the entire Earth system?

We can ball park it. The Laurentide ice sheet, one of the larger ones in the glacial period, is estimated to be 26,000,000 cubic kilometers. That's 2.65 x 10^27 grams of ice. Melting a gram of ice requires 334 joules. that's 9 x 10^29 joules - we're ball parking, so let's call it 10^30. That's more than every single bit of energy produced by the Sun in a second.

The Earth receives 4.5 x 10^-10 of that output. Conveniently, that's roughly cancelled out by the number of seconds in 300 years (9 x 10^9). And 300 years is a generous estimate of how long the melting took (300 years to form, 100 years to move rocks around, 300 years to melt) under the creation model. So, the ballpark is that every single bit of energy sent to the Earth by the Sun was somehow absorbed (i.e., not reflected back into space by all that ice) and used to melt the ice.

Oh, wait - i forgot - there were other ice sheets in Europe and the Southern Hemisphere. Guess it doesn't work.

So, as a scientist, i see the case against at least this form of Biblical Creation being pretty airtight.

I will end this delightful chat with one of my favorite quotes from David Bohm (I used it in our book Without Excuse, 2011) which speaks to people like yourself, people who say and believe: "No one has led me to believe anything. I'm a trained scientist - I'm capable of evaluating evidence." Listen carefully to what Bohm (not a Creationist) says:

“It seems clear that everybody has got some kind of metaphysics,
even if he thinks he hasn’t got any. Indeed, the practical ‘hard-headed’
individual who ‘only goes by what he sees’ has a very dangerous
kind of metaphysics, i.e., the kind of which he is unaware … Such
metaphysics is dangerous because, in it, assumptions and inferences are
being mistaken for directly observed facts, with the result that they are
effectively riveted in an almost unchangeable way into the structure of
thought. What is called for is therefore that each one of us be aware of
his metaphysical assumptions, to the extent that this is possible.”

Sketches, Further Remarks on Order; from the 1969 book
Towards a Theoretical Biology, David Bohm, PhD.

Jorge