[Mike C.]

Originally Posted by seekinganswers

Yes, experts can disagree about their theories. What they cannot disagree about is the evidence that is present. Creationists say there is evidence that is not there, i.e. increased radiation over geologically small time periods sufficient to melt the mantle, radiative heat that instantly liquefies the mantle but not the crust, plates that move past each other apparently without touching each other. All of these are statements made by creationists for which we have absolutely no evidence (nor would these things be possible given the current state of what we understand of physics). Unless creationists want to posit that the basic tenants of physics themselves have been wildly changing in very short periods of time they are being intellectually dishonest with everyone else. At that point science goes right out the window (because science is founded on those basic tenants). I would accept a creationist who said it was possible for physics to change in this way, but only if they enjoined on that the reality that we cannot see God in the evidences of creation (because we have no evidence for such wild changes); I will not agree with the creationist, however, who says that we can see the evidences for a wildly changing physics; that is dishonest.

Peace,
Michael

Well you could be correct there, I don't know. I don't have sufficient knowledge of physics to judge if those claims are even plausible or implausible.

[seekinganswers]

Originally Posted by Mike C.

Well you could be correct there, I don't know. I don't have sufficient knowledge of physics to judge if those claims are even plausible or implausible.

Thank you for at least recognizing that this critique is not merely a personal disagreement.

I can assure you that tectonic plates do not move past other without any friction. That is entirely a delusion.

Peace,
Michael

[Mike C.]

Originally Posted by zippy2006

Your position only holds if science is highly relativistic: if there are a wide variety of scientific assumptions and methodologies in modern science that produce legitimately opposed conclusions. To be honest, I don't think any of that is true, and if it is true in some sense, the deviations exist on a much smaller scale than what the pertinent questions here exist on.

The "softer" the science the more diversity you find, and the "harder," the less. However, in math the queen of sciences, there are always multiple legitimate ways to describe the same phenomenon. If that is so in math which under girds all of science, it is certainly true throughout the rest, even if that has yet to be recognized.

Furthermore, as has been mentioned, the relevant methodologies are not scientific. The Bible is not a scientific source per se; scientists do not require the Bible to do science.

Why should anyone care? It's irrelevant. We should only care about science in so far as it is rationally legitimate.

Imagine a world where the Bible does not exist. Do creationists making creationist claims still exist in that world? Would science really actually come to various and significantly different conclusions on these matters in that case?

If science prefer naturalistic explanations then I rather suspect there would be some notable differences. I'm skeptical we would necessarily conclude the Biblical pattern of creation but perhaps some rudimentary form of special creation would be considered. I'm merely speculating. I don't know, because there's no guarantee that the creation has even left enough evidence to discover these things.

[noguru]

Originally Posted by Mike C.

The "softer" the science the more diversity you find, and the "harder," the less. However, in math the queen of sciences, there are always multiple legitimate ways to describe the same phenomenon. If that is so in math which under girds all of science, it is certainly true throughout the rest, even if that has yet to be recognized.

Can you point to one science, softer or harder, that replaces the empirical evidence we gain from the scientific methodology (and math) with anything else in regard to obtaining accurate research?

[Mike C.]

Originally Posted by noguru

I see that you have time to continue to comment on this issue. Yet you do not seem to have time to contribute to the thread I provided so that you can adjust the foundational presuppositions in the scientific method so that we will have a standardized model of investigation into the supernatural. Your strategy here is noted.

I keep getting down these rabbit holes. I have to learn how to limit that.

Originally Posted by noguru

If they initially are so transparent, then why the later facade of science?

It makes more sense to just stick with the initial "transparent" approach.

Why is it a facade? Is there some science "club" that one must gain membership in first? From my readings of creationist literature they don't shy away from mentioning God and Christ, though they do focus on the scientific because they are attempting to address scientific claims scientifically. There's nothing wrong with that.

It is not about "preferring" any explanation. It is about what the evidence suggests. Do you sincerely believe that people would rather believe we share common ancestry with a cockroach than to believe we were directly created by God from dust?

Some atheists obviously do since they outright say so. But that's neither here nor there. Again, evidence doesn't "suggest" anything. People interpret evidence as they think is appropriate.

And again, I am compelled to point out that, you are now simply feeding more into creationist attempts at erecting a facade of science. If you think there is a valid philosophical way to investigate the "supernatural" using any sort of standardized methodology, then by all means I have asked you to make that contribution to thread I have mentioned several times now.

Trying to get there.

[Mike C.]

Originally Posted by noguru

Can you point to one science, softer or harder, that replaces the empirical evidence we gain from the scientific methodology (and math) with anything else in regard to obtaining accurate research?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I was saying there's more than one legitimate way to interpret evidence. This must be so since there is more than one way to interpret phenomenon using pure math. Maybe you can rephrase?

[voltaire]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

The problem with that, is the accelerated radiation. A significant increase in the rate of radioactive decay would kill all life on the planet. So that's out.

That is only if the radiation could reach life on the planet. Miles and miles of peridotite mantle would prevent any radiation from reaching life on the surface.

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

Also, the heat generated in the core takes an extremely long time to get to the mantle. Wouldn't happen in a few thousand years.

200,000 years is plenty of time for heat to reach all through the mantle if the temperatre is high enough.

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by seekinganswers

Can it be agreed that energy in the universe is neither created nor destroyed on large scales (the conservation of energy in closed systems?).

If this is so, and we agree that the landmasses of the earth used to be one (via Genesis 1 where it is pictured in just that way), pray tell, how much energy would be required to move, in a geological instant mind you, the plates from their former positions into their present locations in time? Where would that energy have come from?

Secondly, if enough energy were introduced to the system to move the plates in that way, how was that energy not enough to melt the crust and boil the oceans?

Peace,
Michael

Why do you assume the continents drifted apart that rapidly?

[noguru]

Originally Posted by Mike C.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I was saying there's more than one legitimate way to interpret evidence. This must be so since there is more than one way to interpret phenomenon using pure math. Maybe you can rephrase?

You were trying to equate the existence of empirical evidence in a certain science as some sort of indicator of whether that science is "softer or harder". (I don't like to use "soft vs hard" to describe science. I think that is a very naive way to look at science, but I will use them here for your sake.)

Some fields of science are currently more open to interpretation of the empirical evidence. And that is usually the softer sciences because there are many hidden variables as well as a more complex set of factors involved. This does not mean "softer" sciences are less dependent on empirical evidence. It actually means they are more dependent on empirical evidence. Although based on the level of complexity as well as the available tools, clear cut decisions are generally much more difficult to ascertain for softer sciences.

If you agree with that then you will not bring up the distinction of "softer vs harder" science as a diversion, the next time I say that empirical evidence is the fundamental currency of all science.

[voltaire]

Originally Posted by seekinganswers

And where did this radioactive decay come from? Why did only last 40 days (not millions of years)?

It came from radioactive elements. Because it started out at a high rate then petered out to the rate it is today exponentially.

Originally Posted by seekinganswers

You still do not grasp the problem. Irregardless of the viscosity of the athenosphere, at a subduction zone one plate moves under another in such a way that the two plates grind past each other. The athenosphere is underneath both these plates. You can reduce the friction of a plate diving into the mantle (it's still questionable whether low viscosity would ever remove friction from a plate diving into the athenosphere at 35mph) but you cannot reduce the friction between the plates in that manner. One plate grinding past the other at 35mph would most certainly destroy both plates.

Moving their distances over 200,000 years, the plates would not be grinding past each other at 35 mph. It would be going at a slow enough pace as to not create problematic friction. The friction of the crust part of the plates moving past each other would not be enough to boil off the oceans especially spread out over 200,000 years.

Originally Posted by seekinganswers

It would be absolutely impossible for any plate to move without there being slip strike zones. the plates cannot be subducting along every edge, otherwise the plate would simply be submerging into the athenosphere (melting along all sides). If one side is submerging, another side growing, then there are edges moving past one another as well. Again, a movement 35mph along those fault lines would destroy the crust.

Again, who said anything about 35 mph. Even if slip strike zones are a requirement of plate movement via subduction, the relatively fast movement would simply break the crust into smaller pieces which would assimilate with magma that would seep up through those zones due to higher heat generated by accelerated decay.

Originally Posted by seekinganswers

Ok this is clearly an extra-biblical time estimate. There is no accounting for 200,000 years in the Biblical record.

The Bible does not say anything about how long it took. It simply describes the year of the actualy flood. I does not address the aftermath of the flood or the length of time that period of time took place.

Originally Posted by seekinganswers

Secondly, the plate would have to move at 52.8 feet per year (hundreds of times faster than what plates move today). The plate on plate interaction at the subduction zones and along slip-strike zones would produce earthquakes of far greater frequency and greater magnitude. There would evidence of such earthquakes in the record, and I am still pretty sure that such movement would produce enough friction to melt the plates along their edges.

We only have earthquake records going back so far. The vast majority of the quick plate movement occurred much earlier than earthquakes were being recorded.

[seekinganswers]

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

Why do you assume the continents drifted apart that rapidly?

If there is a mechanism with enough energy to move the continents it would have to be the waters (which were only rising for 40 days). Secondly, even if we posit a longer period of time, the problem is the same over YEC time scales.

40 days - 2000 miles amounts to about 50 miles per day, or 264,000 feet per day (present faults at most move .027 centimeters/.01 inches / .0008 feet). If the continents moved as far in a day as YECs suggest, they would move in one day at a rate 330 million times faster than what is presently observed. The current faults produce earthquakes in excess of 9.0 at their worst. A 330 million fold increase would be more than enough energy to pulverize the plates.

Now let's look at 200 years (a little more modest). The plates would have to average 10 miles per year. That's 52,800 feet per year (presently we observe 4 inches, or .33 feet per year). This is still a 160,000 fold increase, again, more than enough energy to produce catastrophic earthquakes at the fault zones.

What about 2000 years (an impossibility since in recorded history earthquakes have happened at rates comparable to the present, i.e. 2000 years from the flood would bring us into an era where we have already observed that the plates moved like they do today). Nevertheless, 2000 years would yield 1 mile per year, on average, 5280 feet per year. That is still 16,000 times the rate presently observed. Imagine near constant earthquakes more than 9.0 on the Richter scale (clearly it hasn't been observed!). The energy, I believe, would still be enough to liquefy the crusts along their edges.

No matter what time scale you surmise, the friction along the faults would make such movement impossible (without destroying the continental plates).

Peace,
Michael

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The problem with that, is the accelerated radiation. A significant increase in the rate of radioactive decay would kill all life on the planet. So that's out.

That is only if the radiation could reach life on the planet. Miles and miles of peridotite mantle would prevent any radiation from reaching life on the surface.

So now, radiation acceleration only happened in a specific place? Aren't you over your limit for non-scriptural miracles to make your beliefs work? If the laws of physics were suddenly set aside, back ground radiation from rocks on the surface would have killed all living things.

Barbarian observes:
Also, the heat generated in the core takes an extremely long time to get to the mantle. Wouldn't happen in a few thousand years.

200,000 years is plenty of time for heat to reach all through the mantle if the temperatre is high enough.

Let's have a look at your numbers, um?

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by seekinganswers

If there is a mechanism with enough energy to move the continents it would have to be the waters (which were only rising for 40 days). Secondly, even if we posit a longer period of time, the problem is the same over YEC time scales.

1. Why do you assume it was the flood?
2. Thousands of years is a problem?

You're suffering the same problem all evolutionists do; you're beginning from a conclusion.

40 days - 2000 miles amounts to about 50 miles per day, or 264,000 feet per day (present faults at most move .027 centimeters/.01 inches / .0008 feet). If the continents moved as far in a day as YECs suggest, they would move in one day at a rate 330 million times faster than what is presently observed. The current faults produce earthquakes in excess of 9.0 at their worst. A 330 million fold increase would be more than enough energy to pulverize the plates.

Now let's look at 200 years (a little more modest). The plates would have to average 10 miles per year. That's 52,800 feet per year (presently we observe 4 inches, or .33 feet per year). This is still a 160,000 fold increase, again, more than enough energy to produce catastrophic earthquakes at the fault zones.

What about 2000 years (an impossibility since in recorded history earthquakes have happened at rates comparable to the present, i.e. 2000 years from the flood would bring us into an era where we have already observed that the plates moved like they do today). Nevertheless, 2000 years would yield 1 mile per year, on average, 5280 feet per year. That is still 16,000 times the rate presently observed. Imagine near constant earthquakes more than 9.0 on the Richter scale (clearly it hasn't been observed!). The energy, I believe, would still be enough to liquefy the crusts along their edges.

No matter what time scale you surmise, the friction along the faults would make such movement impossible (without destroying the continental plates).

Peace,
Michael

So they've moved 2000 miles since the beginning? What's the fraction of miles per year they currently move?

[The Barbarian]

So they've moved 2000 miles since the beginning? What's the fraction of miles per year they currently move?

Roughly 0.000012 miles. That's 12 one-millionths of a mile. In 10,000 years, the crust would have moved about 200 yards.

[seekinganswers]

Originally Posted by voltaire

It came from radioactive elements. Because it started out at a high rate then petered out to the rate it is today exponentially.

Let me get this straight:
1. The earth is created without faults and has a single land mass. Somehow there is present in the core an ungodly amount of radioactivity, enough to heat up the whole mantle in a geological instant, breaking the crust, and getting plate tectonics moving at speeds in excess of 330 million times what are observed today. And what was the crust made of that it defied the laws of physics in being able to hold in all that radioactivity (without melting before the flood)? How was the mantle able to defy liquefying in the time before the flood, if the energy was already there? Why hasn't that radioactivity been detected in the newest parts of the crust? Why do we see radioactivity along the sea floors at levels less than what is presently made? Why does it look like, going back into the geological past, that radioactive levels in the crust have remained relatively constant throughout earth's history? That is what is observed. If your theory were correct we would expect that the levels of radioactive elements and their end products to be at ratios higher than what observed in the new crust today (which is not what we see).

2. You still haven't addressed the plate on plate problem. Even if you lower the viscosity of the mantle, plates are heavy things and they do not defy gravity. When one plate moves other another the one on top rests on the one below it. When plates move past each other, hundreds of miles of solid rock rubs against another hundreds of miles of solid rock. What would lubricate those interaction, pray tell me?

3. How does the mantle hold its heat in to prevent it from melting the crust above it? The last time I checked heat rises and if it is able to get to the mantle it will be transferred to the crust (and that level of heating would be more than enough to melt the whole crust). What would have prevented that, please do tell me?

Originally Posted by voltaire

Moving their distances over 200,000 years, the plates would not be grinding past each other at 35 mph. It would be going at a slow enough pace as to not to create problematic friction. The friction of the crust part of the plates moving past each other would not be enough to boil off the oceans especially spread out over 200,000 years.

First of, how do you account for 200,000 years between the flood and modern times in the Bible itself?

And even over 200,000 years it would be more than enough to cause devastation. The plates would have to average .01 miles per year, that's 52.8 feet per year. Currently plates move, at most, .33 feet per year. The present faults produce earthquakes in excess of 9.0. Your model would increase the speed of the faults by 160 fold. 160 times the frequency of earthquakes would cause devastation across the globe (not to mention the lack of evidence for that level of earthquakes in the historical record).

Originally Posted by voltaire

Again, who said anything about 35 mph. Even if slip strike zones are a requirement of plate movement via subduction, the relatively fast movement would simply break the crust into smaller pieces which would assimilate with magma that would seep up through those zones due to higher heat generated by accelerated decay.

The 35mph was someone's estimate for how fast the plates had moved. I was responding to them when I made those estimates.

Secondly, energies of that magnitude would felt much further in than at the crusts alone. 160 fold increase in speed with the same frictions would reverberate through the crust and cause many more fractures than are observed today.

And again, the increase heat, if it was enough to radically alter the state of the mantle, would have been enough to melt the whole surface of the earth. The crust is 4 percent the thickness of the upper mantle. If there is enough heat to radically alter the state of the upper mantle, it would be more than enough energy to melt the crust.

Originally Posted by voltaire

The Bible does not say anything about how long it took. It simply describes the year of the actualy flood. I does not address the aftermath of the flood or the length of time that period of time took place.

Really?

Originally Posted by Genesis 6:6

Noah was six hundred years old when the flood waters came on the earth

Originally Posted by Genesis 8:13

In the six hundred first year, in the first month, on the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from the earth.

Originally Posted by Genesis 9:28-29

After the flood Noah lived three hundred fifty years. All the days of Noah were nine hundred fifty years and he died

That places the flood as starting and ending squarely in Noah's 600th year of life (less than a year the flood came and was gone).

There certainly isn't 200,000 years accounted for between Noah's day and the present in the Bible.

Originally Posted by voltaire

We only have earthquake records going back so far. The vast majority of the quick plate movement occurred much earlier than earthquakes were being recorded.

Anything that happened after the flood would be recorded (including earthquakes of a frequency 160 times those observed in the present).

Peace,
Michael