Re: Old Age of Earth

On Oct 23, 5:32 pm, Seanpit <sean...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snip]

There is good evidence, in my opinion that the geologic column, in
particular, is young.  

And, rather than all your nonsensical bogus numerology and 1000aa
nonsense, that is all you really need to convince scientists of. *If*
you actually had "good evidence" that the "geologic column, in
particular, is young" (meaning less than, say, 10,000 years old)
everyone would concede that we must be wrong about common descent as
the mechanism that links organisms lower in the geologic column with
those higher up and on to the current crop. And we would also have to
be wrong about the apparent pattern of relationships that exist in
sequences of living organisms.

Your problem is that you have to reject essentially all of geology
since *before* Darwin's theory was conceived to come to the conclusion
that "the geologic column...is young." Even *real* creation
scientists (back when that was not an oxymoron) were convinced that
the idea of a single catastrophe being responsible for the 'geologic
column' was nonsense. Including that old fraud who found a non-
existent hippocampus minor, Richard Owen, and that racist scumbag
creationist, Louis Agassiz.

George McReady Price, the Seventh Day Adventist creationist apologist
was neither a geologist nor a scientist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_McCready_Price

"In 1896, he enrolled in a one-year teacher training course at the
Provincial Normal School of New Brunswick (now the University of New
Brunswick), where he took " some elementary courses in some of the
natural sciences, including some mineralogy", which was Price's sole
formal training in science."

His ideas were NEVER taken seriously by other scientists.

[snip]

And if
radiometric dating doesn't work, why would that be? Doesn't it seem that
it theoretically should work?

It should work, if it were actually possible to know the starting
point conditions.  That's one of the main problem with radiometric
dating assumptions.

What about methods that don't require us to know the starting
conditions, like concordia/discordia methods? And can we really be that
many orders of magnitude off in methods that do require starting
conditions to be known, and still come up with consistent results?

Those methods also have starting condition problems - just different
kinds of starting point problems.  I discuss these methods on my
website.

So, what caused radioactive isotopes to order themselves so
consistently in a 6000 year old crust given that isotopes are
chemically all essentially identical? Why shouldn't a sudden
solidification of the crust produce a uniform ratio for isotopes that
have half-lives much longer than that? Why is there a general dearth
of 14C in non-biogenic carbon and even in coals, given that they all
must be (since in the part of the crust that includes the geologic
column) less than 6000 years old?

But, in general, how do coal beds and limestone strata form? How can
the same event that can apparently grind up the rocks of the previous
crust into fine particles capable of forming sediments miles thick on
what is now land allow the occasional formation of fine-grained beds
containing fossils with impressions of feathers?

I've listed it on my website.  I'm just not interested in hashing this
topic out with you here . . .

Of course you aren't. Where on your web site, exactly?

It's all nicely labeled.  Just look.

Its undoubtedly all bogus attempts to claim that because there are
some rare anomolies (often already explained ones), the entire idea
can be overthrown for an idea that is such an incoherent mishmash that
no one in their right mind can fail to see through it.

But let's accept this several billion year old planet. What happened
during the existence of the earth prior to a few thousand years ago?
I don't know?
Do
we have any rocks from that time (by "time" I refer to all but a
negligible fraction of earth's history)? How would we tell?
I don't know that either?  I don't think anybody does.
So you're saying that we can learn nothing about earth's history from
geology, except for the past few thousand years? How does it happen that
almost all the history of the planet left no record at all?
Most of the planet's mass is molten you know.  I think the entire
biosphere and solid crustal rocks were recently created.
This is not true. I see you know as much about geophysics as you do
about biology. No, the only molten parts are the outer core and various
pockets in the asthenosphere, mostly at mid-ocean ridges and near
subduction zones. You may think that the crust is new, but what evidence
do you have for that?

Don't try to be clever and play with semantics.  If you want to play
that game, the definition of molten can mean very different things
from completely melted into a liquid-like state or semi-solid or
simply having extreme radiant heat or "brilliance".

No it can't. "Molten" means "liquid". Magma is molten.

Molten doesn't just mean "liquid" - look it up.



The asthenosphere is called the "weak" or "soft" zone of the upper
mantle.  It extends as deep as 400km.  It is hot enough to be
"molten", but very high pressure keeps it in a more solid state in
spite of its heat - i.e., the pressure keeps it "plastic" or "highly
viscous" and at a relatively low density. Of course, the inner core is
solid because of the same reason - extremely high pressure.  The
mantle is still "solid", but relatively more plastic with the upper
mantle having relatively low viscosity.  The lower mantle is under far
greater pressure, of course, so has higher viscosity.  The metallic
nickel-iron outer core is liquid despite the enormous pressure since
it has a lower melting point than the mantle silicates.  The inner
core is solid due to the overwhelming pressure at the center of the
planet.

Exactly. The mantle is solid, and the inner core is solid. Neither is
molten. If you lowered the pressure quite a bit without lowering the
temperature, most of it would melt. And this is what happens at
spreading centers, for example. But that doesn't mean that the mantle
isn't solid under the conditions of temperature and pressure it
experiences.

Again, the mantel has a degree of plasticity even though it is
extremely hot.  The extreme pressure keeps it in a more solid state -
though not rigidly so. The mantle slowly shifts and mixes over time.
This all plays into problems with dating mantle material using
radiometric methods.

None of this has anything to do with dating the crustal rocks because
the radiometric clock is supposed to get reset to zero at the time of
a volcanic eruption.

Indeed it doesn't. But you're the one who brought it up. So back to the
question. What evidence do you have that the crust is new?

Like I said, it's on my website.  I'm not interested in getting into a
dozen different topics with you at the same time.  These exchanges are
long enough as it is.

Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: THE THREE BEARS OF PLATE TECTONICS
    ... > It sneaks off above the mantle, ... I'm not asking where the sediments came from, ... (on the Continental crust ... > You've renounced any good knowledge of of Himalayn geology. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Old Age of Earth
    ... that the sun is old outside of radiometric dating - that this idea is ... Now that you see that there is such evidence, ... solid because of the same reason - extremely high pressure. ... mantle is still "solid", but relatively more plastic with the upper ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Old Age of Earth
    ... Now that you see that there is such evidence, ... age of the rest of the planet. ... solid because of the same reason - extremely high pressure. ... mantle is still "solid", but relatively more plastic with the upper ...
    (talk.origins)
  • New geosciences model explains ocean formation
    ... that tectonic models account for the geology of deep-water ocean basins. ... by earlier models," said Lavier. ... lithosphere-stretch and deform in a process that breaks apart continents. ... process called mantle melting, which forms the volcanic seafloor in deep ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: The Drowned World
    ... a wormhole so the potential energy difference wrt the Sun between Earth and Neptune isn't an issue. ... The pressure in the mantle ... Quick searches suggest that the pressure in Uranus' mantle is about 300 GPa; seal level pressure is 100 kPa, ... Expressed as a volumic energy, that's about 300 GJ/m^3, or about 1 ton of TNT equivalent per cubic meter. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
Loading