Question to Bob about supernovas
- Thread starter Toast
- Start date
- Status
Toast: a new file I've started: List of Things Not So Old...
Toast: a new file I've started: List of Things Not So Old...
Toast, please see the last bullet under Fossils and things... I'm sorry I don't have that sourced better than a link to our own RSF program, but over time I'll be adding items to this file and improving the references. So, I've just dumped the contents of this file here. Hope this helps...
List of Things Not So Old Things
Geological Time Dilation: Time seems to speed up
when evidence approaches the light of day. KGOV.com’s Real Science Friday hosts CRS webmaster Fred Williams and Bob Enyart have reported on geological features that many atheistic old-earth geologists no longer claim took millions of years to form:
* Heart Mountain Detachment near Yellowstone, didn't take millions of years, but 30 minutes!
* Scablands in the state of Washington formed rapidly in floods per NOVA's TV show
* Yellowstone Petrified Tree Strata: Nat'l Park Service took down the deceptive sign that claimed successive forests since there were no root systems and the trees were transported there. I personally (Bob Enyart) worked with the head ranger at a National Park (had dinner at his home; discussed how this sign could be removed), and he corresponded with his colleagues at Yellowstone and urged them to correct or remove the sign. They removed it. (See also AIG.)
* Carlsbad Cavern: New Mexico, Nat'l Park Service took down the sign claiming formation took millions of year (audio tour "rate of formation depends on the amount of available water")
* Lihir Gold Deposit: in Papua New Guinea, which evolutionists assumed took millions of years to form, but which geologists now have evidence could have formed in thousands of years, or far more quickly!
* Box Canyon, Idaho: Geologists now think Box Canyon in Idaho, USA, was carved by a catastrophic flood and not slowly over millions of years with 1) huge plunge pools formed by waterfalls; 2) the almost complete removal of large basalt boulders from the canyon; 3) an eroded notch on the plateau at the top of the canyon; and 4) water scour marks on the basalt plateau leading to the canyon. Scientists calculate that the flood was so large that it could have eroded the whole canyon in as little as 35 days. Creation Magazine, Sept. – Nov. 2008 page 7 from Science 23 May 2008, pp. 1067-1070
Fossils and things that challenge million-year ages:
* Soft tissue in a supposedly 65-million year old T-rex thighbone that remain supple: see startling photos!
* Rare school of jellyfish fossilized in seven layers deposited supposedly over a million years near Milwaukee! Too cool!
* Manganese nodules formed "around beer cans" disproving million-year requirement
* European vs. Asiatic honeybees that communicate through dance after a supposed 7-million year separation! See Real Science Friday at KGOV.com, Nov. 7, 2008, from Creation Magazine, Sept. – Nov. 2008 page 8, from creationontheweb.com/speciation, from PLoS ONE (Public Library of Science) 4 June 2008.
* Mitochondrial Eve (researching this is an exercise for the student )
*Super Nova Remnants: an explosion appeared in the night sky in 1054 A.D. as a supernova remnant (SNR) in the Crab Nebula. Evolutionary scientists have measured and calculated the expected rate that stars would explode. However, if the universe is billions of years old, the vast majority of SNRs (like the Crab Nebula) that should exist, are missing! Instead, the number of SNRs corresponds well to the expected number if the universe is less than 10,000 years old, especially considering that astronomers have not found a single SNR at Stage 3 (a great diameter)! Of course, if the universe is young, there should be no State 3 SNRs! Listen to this Real Science Friday program at KGOV.com!
From TOL http://theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1892144#post1892144
Nick M: I was watching something and they were talking about the genetic bottleneck that happened 75,000 years ago. They describe the side effects of the flood in absolute terms. Our heritage all to one person, and the same with all the animals on the planet. And they wonder where did the missing genes go. The speculation is a volcano 75,000 years ago must have caused it. All animals share common genes. All humas share common genes, froma single cataclysmic event. But they won't owe up to what caused it. Waiting for jokia to explain it...
Related:
* Tibetan Plateau, Creation Magazine, Sept. – Nov. 2008 p. 10, from Physorg.com, age of Himalayan-Tibetan Plateau a 'very young' 2-3 million years, millions of years younger than previously believed.
Toast: a new file I've started: List of Things Not So Old...
Toast, please see the last bullet under Fossils and things... I'm sorry I don't have that sourced better than a link to our own RSF program, but over time I'll be adding items to this file and improving the references. So, I've just dumped the contents of this file here. Hope this helps...
List of Things Not So Old Things
Geological Time Dilation: Time seems to speed up
when evidence approaches the light of day. KGOV.com’s Real Science Friday hosts CRS webmaster Fred Williams and Bob Enyart have reported on geological features that many atheistic old-earth geologists no longer claim took millions of years to form:* Heart Mountain Detachment near Yellowstone, didn't take millions of years, but 30 minutes!
* Scablands in the state of Washington formed rapidly in floods per NOVA's TV show
* Yellowstone Petrified Tree Strata: Nat'l Park Service took down the deceptive sign that claimed successive forests since there were no root systems and the trees were transported there. I personally (Bob Enyart) worked with the head ranger at a National Park (had dinner at his home; discussed how this sign could be removed), and he corresponded with his colleagues at Yellowstone and urged them to correct or remove the sign. They removed it. (See also AIG.)
* Carlsbad Cavern: New Mexico, Nat'l Park Service took down the sign claiming formation took millions of year (audio tour "rate of formation depends on the amount of available water")
* Lihir Gold Deposit: in Papua New Guinea, which evolutionists assumed took millions of years to form, but which geologists now have evidence could have formed in thousands of years, or far more quickly!
* Box Canyon, Idaho: Geologists now think Box Canyon in Idaho, USA, was carved by a catastrophic flood and not slowly over millions of years with 1) huge plunge pools formed by waterfalls; 2) the almost complete removal of large basalt boulders from the canyon; 3) an eroded notch on the plateau at the top of the canyon; and 4) water scour marks on the basalt plateau leading to the canyon. Scientists calculate that the flood was so large that it could have eroded the whole canyon in as little as 35 days. Creation Magazine, Sept. – Nov. 2008 page 7 from Science 23 May 2008, pp. 1067-1070
Fossils and things that challenge million-year ages:
* Soft tissue in a supposedly 65-million year old T-rex thighbone that remain supple: see startling photos!
* Rare school of jellyfish fossilized in seven layers deposited supposedly over a million years near Milwaukee! Too cool!
* Manganese nodules formed "around beer cans" disproving million-year requirement
* European vs. Asiatic honeybees that communicate through dance after a supposed 7-million year separation! See Real Science Friday at KGOV.com, Nov. 7, 2008, from Creation Magazine, Sept. – Nov. 2008 page 8, from creationontheweb.com/speciation, from PLoS ONE (Public Library of Science) 4 June 2008.
* Mitochondrial Eve (researching this is an exercise for the student
)*Super Nova Remnants: an explosion appeared in the night sky in 1054 A.D. as a supernova remnant (SNR) in the Crab Nebula. Evolutionary scientists have measured and calculated the expected rate that stars would explode. However, if the universe is billions of years old, the vast majority of SNRs (like the Crab Nebula) that should exist, are missing! Instead, the number of SNRs corresponds well to the expected number if the universe is less than 10,000 years old, especially considering that astronomers have not found a single SNR at Stage 3 (a great diameter)! Of course, if the universe is young, there should be no State 3 SNRs! Listen to this Real Science Friday program at KGOV.com!
From TOL http://theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1892144#post1892144
Nick M: I was watching something and they were talking about the genetic bottleneck that happened 75,000 years ago. They describe the side effects of the flood in absolute terms. Our heritage all to one person, and the same with all the animals on the planet. And they wonder where did the missing genes go. The speculation is a volcano 75,000 years ago must have caused it. All animals share common genes. All humas share common genes, froma single cataclysmic event. But they won't owe up to what caused it. Waiting for jokia to explain it...
Related:
* Tibetan Plateau, Creation Magazine, Sept. – Nov. 2008 p. 10, from Physorg.com, age of Himalayan-Tibetan Plateau a 'very young' 2-3 million years, millions of years younger than previously believed.
Last edited:
Hey Bob,
When you make claims about science, there is sometimes an actual scientist within ear-shot to check your claims against actual evidence.
All the links in the above just lead to creation propaganda. Let's be honest for a second and admit that creation is not science. At least not yet (and most likely not ever). BUT... If you, or any other creationist can come up with a way to validate your claims with falsifiability, then and only then can you call it science.
Until that time, I would appreciate you providing actual scientific evidence for the claims made above. Such as a peer reviewed paper from an internationally recognized and accredited geology/chemistry/astronomy/physics/biology department/facility/organization.
Regards,
P
When you make claims about science, there is sometimes an actual scientist within ear-shot to check your claims against actual evidence.
All the links in the above just lead to creation propaganda. Let's be honest for a second and admit that creation is not science. At least not yet (and most likely not ever). BUT... If you, or any other creationist can come up with a way to validate your claims with falsifiability, then and only then can you call it science.
Until that time, I would appreciate you providing actual scientific evidence for the claims made above. Such as a peer reviewed paper from an internationally recognized and accredited geology/chemistry/astronomy/physics/biology department/facility/organization.
Regards,
P
Isn't it you, Toast, who fancy's themselves a "student of science and engineering" [sic]?
I showed no bias at all. Creation is not a science. The previous declarative statement is truth, not bias. A student of science and engineering should know this.
However, why don't you accomplish something that's not yet been accomplished? Why don't you make it a science by proving that it can be verified and falsified. Until then, please only submit actual scientific data that can be interpreted and debated, and discard with the creation propaganda which has been refuted ad nauseum.
Last edited:
pozzolane (that's Italian, no?),
All the links are to creationist sites?
I'm looking forward to the day when the National Park Service is a creation ministry, but that day has not yet come. So the link to their NPS Carlsbad Cavern site (I've been there, by the way, er, uh... not just the page, but the cave
) should satisfy you on this score.And I've watched the NOVA TV show that documents that the Scablands formed rapidly. pozzolane, I hope you can accept that program as non-propaganda even though the link passes through a Christian website. No?
pozzolane, why don't you pick out just one of these items that you think is factually inaccurate.
List of Things Not So Old Things
* Heart Mountain Detachment near Yellowstone, didn't take millions of years, but 30 minutes!
* Scablands in the state of Washington formed rapidly in floods per NOVA's TV show
* Yellowstone Petrified Tree Strata: Nat'l Park Service took down the deceptive sign that claimed successive forests since there were no root systems and the trees were transported there. I personally (Bob Enyart) worked with the head ranger at a National Park (had dinner at his home; discussed how this sign could be removed), and he corresponded with his colleagues at Yellowstone and urged them to correct or remove the sign. They removed it. (See also AIG.)
* Carlsbad Cavern: New Mexico, Nat'l Park Service took down the sign claiming formation took millions of year (audio tour "rate of formation depends on the amount of available water")
* Lihir Gold Deposit: in Papua New Guinea, which evolutionists assumed took millions of years to form, but which geologists now have evidence could have formed in thousands of years, or far more quickly!
* Box Canyon, Idaho: Geologists now think Box Canyon in Idaho, USA, was carved by a catastrophic flood and not slowly over millions of years with 1) huge plunge pools formed by waterfalls; 2) the almost complete removal of large basalt boulders from the canyon; 3) an eroded notch on the plateau at the top of the canyon; and 4) water scour marks on the basalt plateau leading to the canyon. Scientists calculate that the flood was so large that it could have eroded the whole canyon in as little as 35 days. Creation Magazine, Sept. – Nov. 2008 page 7 from Science 23 May 2008, pp. 1067-1070
You can also consider something from this list, feel free to indicate any statement that you think is factually inaccurate:
* Soft tissue in a supposedly 65-million year old T-rex thighbone that remain supple: see startling photos!
* Rare school of jellyfish fossilized in seven layers deposited supposedly over a million years near Milwaukee! Too cool!
* Manganese nodules formed "around beer cans" disproving million-year requirement
* European vs. Asiatic honeybees that communicate through dance after a supposed 7-million year separation! See Real Science Friday at KGOV.com, Nov. 7, 2008, from Creation Magazine, Sept. – Nov. 2008 page 8, from creationontheweb.com/speciation, from PLoS ONE (Public Library of Science) 4 June 2008.
*Super Nova Remnants: an explosion appeared in the night sky in 1054 A.D. as a supernova remnant (SNR) in the Crab Nebula. Evolutionary scientists have measured and calculated the expected rate that stars would explode. However, if the universe is billions of years old, the vast majority of SNRs (like the Crab Nebula) that should exist, are missing! Instead, the number of SNRs corresponds well to the expected number if the universe is less than 10,000 years old, especially considering that astronomers have not found a single SNR at Stage 3 (a great diameter)! Of course, if the universe is young, there should be no State 3 SNRs! Listen to this Real Science Friday program at KGOV.com!
-Pastor Bob Enyart
Denver Bible Church
Said another way, you are extremely biased.
The study of how the world was created and how the heavens were stretched out isn't science?
Thanks for responding Bob.
It is. It is somewhat derived from "pozzolana", which is a cementitious material discovered by the romans that has the ability to set under water. I just changed it to pozzolan(e) because that's how I accidentally spelled it in an undergraduate material science course I took years ago.
Ok, let's randomly pick the very first thing in your list. Maybe we can get to the others with my time permitting.
Before I say anything, Bob, can you in your own words describe exactly how you think a 30 minute formation of this mountain proves the validity of the creationist claims?
Furthermore, after reading the paper you provided (non-peer-reviewed creationist paper from a creationist website), I am only further justified in my criticism in my first post here. The evidence is not laid out in a manner which can be interpreted logically, but rather they start with the premise first and foremost that the flood described in genesis is a literal event. This is not how science is done, Bob. I surely hope you can do better than this.
It is. It is somewhat derived from "pozzolana", which is a cementitious material discovered by the romans that has the ability to set under water. I just changed it to pozzolan(e) because that's how I accidentally spelled it in an undergraduate material science course I took years ago.
Ok, let's randomly pick the very first thing in your list. Maybe we can get to the others with my time permitting.
Bob Enyart said:
Before I say anything, Bob, can you in your own words describe exactly how you think a 30 minute formation of this mountain proves the validity of the creationist claims?
Furthermore, after reading the paper you provided (non-peer-reviewed creationist paper from a creationist website), I am only further justified in my criticism in my first post here. The evidence is not laid out in a manner which can be interpreted logically, but rather they start with the premise first and foremost that the flood described in genesis is a literal event. This is not how science is done, Bob. I surely hope you can do better than this.
Nick, I never said I am not biased. I said I didn't show my bias.
lain:What's the scientific method, Nick?
Detachment: not mountain formation, but detachment
Detachment: not mountain formation, but detachment
pozzolane: it doesn't. This formation (by itself) doesn't come anywhere near proving creationist claims. That's not the point of that list. This is a catalog of events that evolutionists have previously indicated occurred over long ages, millions of years, etc., and that they have now backed off, and indicated that these events occurred rapidly.
By the way, that first item is not talking about the formation of a mountain, per se, but its detachment, that is, its breaking into massive pieces and becoming separated by great distances. That's what's now indicated by mainstream geologists to have happen in only minutes.
For your criticism of this item in this list to be valid, you would have to show either that:
1. Uniformitarian (or mainstream, take your pick) geologists never previously claimed that this Heart Mountain Detachment occurred over a long period, or
2. Uniformitarian geologists do not today claim that this detachment happened within minutes.
That's it.
Now I think you should realize that you missed the point with your next comment:
pozzolane, I'm not "doing science" with this list. I'm just reporting on "Not So Old" events that were once claimed to have formed over millions of years, etc., and now are seen by old-earth geologists to have formed rapidly.
I've just started to collect this list, and it's but a tiny sample of such evidence being collected by mainstream scientists.
I enjoy this stuff.
-Bob Enyart
KGOV.com
p.s. I'm not going to have time to go through this list with you (though I'd love to). So, if I ever get back to this thread, and pozzolane you think you can still make your point, you'll have to pick one of the items in the list that the field of geology did not hold to have formed over long ages, OR, pick an items that mainstream geologists today do not believe formed rapidly. (That is, you'd have to find something on that list that I either fabricated, or was very confused about.)
Detachment: not mountain formation, but detachment
pozzolane: it doesn't. This formation (by itself) doesn't come anywhere near proving creationist claims. That's not the point of that list. This is a catalog of events that evolutionists have previously indicated occurred over long ages, millions of years, etc., and that they have now backed off, and indicated that these events occurred rapidly.
By the way, that first item is not talking about the formation of a mountain, per se, but its detachment, that is, its breaking into massive pieces and becoming separated by great distances. That's what's now indicated by mainstream geologists to have happen in only minutes.
For your criticism of this item in this list to be valid, you would have to show either that:
1. Uniformitarian (or mainstream, take your pick) geologists never previously claimed that this Heart Mountain Detachment occurred over a long period, or
2. Uniformitarian geologists do not today claim that this detachment happened within minutes.
That's it.
Now I think you should realize that you missed the point with your next comment:
pozzolane said:
pozzolane, I'm not "doing science" with this list. I'm just reporting on "Not So Old"
events that were once claimed to have formed over millions of years, etc., and now are seen by old-earth geologists to have formed rapidly.I've just started to collect this list, and it's but a tiny sample of such evidence being collected by mainstream scientists.
I enjoy this stuff.
-Bob Enyart
KGOV.com
p.s. I'm not going to have time to go through this list with you (though I'd love to). So, if I ever get back to this thread, and pozzolane you think you can still make your point, you'll have to pick one of the items in the list that the field of geology did not hold to have formed over long ages, OR, pick an items that mainstream geologists today do not believe formed rapidly. (That is, you'd have to find something on that list that I either fabricated, or was very confused about.)
gsweet
New member
hi bob,
for the record, the heart mountain detachment (which i've already covered on this forum) did in fact occur within a geologically short amount of time. so on that front, you are absolutely correct. however, i'm not familiar with any formational theories regarding heart mountain which insinuate a necessity for millions of years. i don't think that "evolutionists" ever assumed that the process took that long. but by looking beyond the simple bullet point on your list (heart mountain again), i feel that this event in no way lends itself to creationist or YEC theory. basically, you end up asking yourself "what caused the heart mountain detachment?" if you're looking towards a global flood, i implore you to look at stratigraphic column of the region...
You are trying to use these examples to prove your creationist claims. Therefore, I do not have to pick either for my criticism to hold, because you first have to show that this event scientifically supports creationism. I've already explained why your paper you linked to is not science, and note that you never addressed my point.
I can say no more until you actually address my point and explain how this event supports your claims of creationism. I can't argue against your position if I don't know what it is.
Bob;
Did you read that article you linked?
- Status