Creation vs. Evolution

[Rosenritter]

So we should "classify" animals the same way as bronze age nomadic sheep herders? I guess "common sense" isn't a worthwhile virtue.Don't try to frighten us with your sorcerer's ways, Lord Rosenritter. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes, or given you clairvoyance enough to find the rebels' hidden fortress.

Totally off topic, but where is your avatar from? I recognize Stripes from Hero, I think.

 

[Tyrathca]

As far down as you find sedimentary rock I expect.

And how deep do creationist models predict that would be? I'd think not very deep (500m? 1km?) but I don't want to put words in their mouths. The process does have a very narrow time scale to achieve it in after all. Mostly the flood really since the process at currently observed rates would take millions of years...

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[redfern]

Speaking of a good laugh, how about you explain how "continental drift ... ocean flow friction and energy dissipation" could make the moon recede more slowly. :chuckle:

Here is a list of 21 published studies dealing with tides and the moon. Some are specifically directed towards how tidal changes result in changes in the orbital recession of the moon, and others deal with relevant historical evidence. I deleted nearly a hundred other articles from the list that describe in much greater detail other studies of tidal and geophysical interactions, but that were less germane to the subject of how fast the moon is receding.

1. “Tidal rhythmites and their implications”, Earth-Science Reviews, Volume 69, Issues 1-2, February 2005, Pages 79-95
2. “Earth/Moon tidal evolution: model results and observational evidence”, Progress in Oceanography, Volume 40, Issues 1-4, 1997, Pages 109-124
3. “Calculating Earth/Moon system parameters from sub-yearly tidal deposit records: An example from the carboniferous tradewater formation”, Sedimentary Geology, Volume 295, 15 September 2013, Pages 67-76
4. “Tidal friction and its consequences in palaeogeodesy, in the gravity field variations and in tectonics”, Journal of Geodynamics, Volume 25, Issues 1?2, January-March 1998, Pages 61-84
5. “Precambrian tidal and glacial clastic deposits: implications for Precambrian Earth/Moon dynamics and palaeoclimate”, Sedimentary Geology, Volume 120, Issues 1-4, September 1998, Pages 55-74
6. “A survey of recent changes in the main components of the ocean tide”, Continental Shelf Research, Volume 30, Issue 15, 1 September 2010, Pages 1680-1691
7. “Body tides on a 3-D elastic earth: Toward a tidal tomography”, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 277, Issues 1-2, 15 January 2009, Pages 86-90
8. “Not so rare Earth? New developments in understanding the origin of the Earth and Moon”, Chemie der Erde - Geochemistry, Volume 67, Issue 3, 25 October 2007, Pages 179-200
9. “The tides, their origins and behaviour”, Endeavour, Volume 10, Issue 4, 1986, Pages 184-190
10. “Whewell’s tidal researches: scientific practice and philosophical methodology”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, Volume 41, Issue 1, March 2010, Pages 26-40
11. “The lunar tides in the Antarctic mesosphere and lower thermosphere”,Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 69, Issues 17-18, December 2007, Pages 2219-2237
12. “Tidal pattern instabilities on multi-moon planets”, Icarus, Volume 189, Issue 1, July 2007, Pages 246-255
13. “History of the earth's obliquity”, Earth-Science Reviews, Volume 34, Issue 1, March 1993, Pages 1-45
14. “The earliest past of the Earth-Moon system”, Icarus, Volume 11, Issue 2, September 1969, Pages 189-207
15. “On the librations and tides of large icy satellites”, Icarus, Volume 226, Issue 1, September/October 2013, Pages 299-315
16. “Parameterization of bottom friction under combined wave-tide action in the Hooghly estuary, India”, Ocean Engineering, Volume 43, April 2012, Pages 43-55
17. “Lunar tides in the mesosphere and lower thermosphere over Cachoeira Paulista (22.7 deg S; 45.0 deg W)”, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volumes 78-79, April 2012, Pages 31-36
18. “Cycles in the scaling properties of length-of-day variations”, Journal of Geodynamics, Volume 49, Issue 2, March 2010, Pages 105-110
19. “High resolution mapping of Earth tide response based on GPS data in Japan”, Journal of Geodynamics, Volume 48, Issues 3-5, December 2009, Pages 253-259
20. “Ocean tidal effects on Earth rotation”, Journal of Geodynamics, Volume 48, Issues 3-5, December 2009, Pages 219-225
21. “The Earth/Moon system during the late heavy bombardment period - Geochemical support for impacts dominated by comets”, Icarus, Volume 204, Issue 2, December 2009, Pages 368-380
​

A specific example extracted from the abstract of a typical study:

Earth-Science Reviews
Volume 97, Issues 1–4, December 2009, Pages 59–79

Tides, tidalites, and secular changes in the Earth–Moon system
Christopher L. Coughenoura, , Allen W. Archerb, , Kenneth J. Lacovarac, ,
________________________________________
Abstract​

… Only with Newton's theory of gravitation in the 17th century was the correlation between lunar cycles and tides partially explained. Further work by Laplace and others resulted in a more dynamic theory that more closely matched observations and allowed for better prediction of local tidal behavior. Quantitative models derived from these methods have increased in precision and complexity (particularly with the advent of the electronic computer), and have allowed new insights into the nature of tidal dynamics and tidal dissipation.
… The partial reconstruction of the history of lunar recession from existing data and analyses indicates that the Earth is presently experiencing a high rate of tidal dissipation. ​

 

[Rosenritter]

And how deep do creationist models predict that would be? I'd think not very deep (500m? 1km?) but I don't want to put words in their mouths. The process does have a very narrow time scale to achieve it in after all. Mostly the flood really since the process at currently observed rates would take millions of years...

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

How long did it take Mount Saint Helens to carve its own canyon? Those processes that some people reason "must take millions of years" can happen quite quickly. If you watch a couch potato one might conclude it would take him "millions of years" to reach the refrigerator, but then suddenly he moves in a flash.

Directly answering, there's no real limit to "how deep" one might find fossils. Most sedimentary would be from the flood, though there could be pre-flood sedimentary rock as well.

 

[redfern]

That's the part that confused me.

A few considerations:

Start with the idea that tides are just “bulges” in the ocean where the water is being pulled up by the moon’s gravity. As the earth rotates, that bulge will move to whatever part of the earth is nearest the moon (almost, since the bulge always is a bit behind the moon’s overhead position).

Look at a deep open-ocean case. When the moon is not overhead, the ocean surface is flat (ignoring waves and such). Later, when the moon is overhead, there is the tide – a bulge of water consisting of billions of liters of water. That water in the bulge had to come from somewhere. It could not come up from below, because you can’t suck water up and just leave a void deep underwater. So it comes from adjacent parts of the ocean. But that means the water in the bulge had to flow laterally – it came in from the sides. In mid-ocean, that lateral flow can come from all sides (but much of it is essentially flowing from where the tidal bulge was highest a few minutes ago to where it is now). But what happens when the earth’s rotation makes the tidal bulge hit a land mass? A significant case is on the coasts of Central America, where the water in the bulge simply cannot flow from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic. As the bulge approaches the land, the water forming the bulge can only come from the ocean side, not the land side of the bulge. And as the moon passes over the land into the next ocean, a brand-new bulge has to form, again using only water from that ocean.

Where the water is shallow, the lateral flow of water to the tidal bulge means a huge amount of shallow water has to flow. Shallow water means high friction with the bottom of the shallow area. Whereas the lateral flow in deep water entails almost no friction with the bottom.

Now envision a “Pangea” earth, with swaths of continuous ocean all the way around the earth. Minimal friction since the water is always deep, minimal transfer of energy from land to the bulge. Thus the energy gravitationally transferred to the moon is vastly less.

I am ignoring more subtle effects, like the fact that the rate the tidal bulge forms is dictated by the rotational rate of the earth, but the rate at which the water “outflows” from the bulge is dictated by how fast the earth’s gravity pulls it back down.

 

[Rosenritter]

A few considerations:

Start with the idea that tides are just “bulges” in the ocean where the water is being pulled up by the moon’s gravity. As the earth rotates, that bulge will move to whatever part of the earth is nearest the moon (almost, since the bulge always is a bit behind the moon’s overhead position).

Look at a deep open-ocean case. When the moon is not overhead, the ocean surface is flat (ignoring waves and such). Later, when the moon is overhead, there is the tide – a bulge of water consisting of billions of liters of water. That water in the bulge had to come from somewhere. It could not come up from below, because you can’t suck water up and just leave a void deep underwater. So it comes from adjacent parts of the ocean. But that means the water in the bulge had to flow laterally – it came in from the sides. In mid-ocean, that lateral flow can come from all sides (but much of it is essentially flowing from where the tidal bulge was highest a few minutes ago to where it is now). But what happens when the earth’s rotation makes the tidal bulge hit a land mass? A significant case is on the coasts of Central America, where the water in the bulge simply cannot flow from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic. As the bulge approaches the land, the water forming the bulge can only come from the ocean side, not the land side of the bulge. And as the moon passes over the land into the next ocean, a brand-new bulge has to form, again using only water from that ocean.

Where the water is shallow, the lateral flow of water to the tidal bulge means a huge amount of shallow water has to flow. Shallow water means high friction with the bottom of the shallow area. Whereas the lateral flow in deep water entails almost no friction with the bottom.

Now envision a “Pangea” earth, with swaths of continuous ocean all the way around the earth. Minimal friction since the water is always deep, minimal transfer of energy from land to the bulge. Thus the energy gravitationally transferred to the moon is vastly less.

I am ignoring more subtle effects, like the fact that the rate the tidal bulge forms is dictated by the rotational rate of the earth, but the rate at which the water “outflows” from the bulge is dictated by how fast the earth’s gravity pulls it back down.

Hey, I had most of that already, but please explain how friction (heat which must be negligible?) transfers to the moon.

 

[redfern]

Hey, I had most of that already, but please explain how friction (heat which must be negligible?) transfers to the moon.

Greater friction means more resistance to water flowing to form the tidal bulge. Bulge is more retarded (lags farther behind cislunar point), resulting in greater angle between cislunar line and the line between the bulge and the moon. Greater angle means a higher component (trig tangent function) of the gravitational attraction vector between the moon and the bulge will be in the moon’s orbital direction, effectively “pulling” the moon faster in its orbit.

In ancient Pangea case, very low friction, so bulge was almost on the cislunar line, so almost no effect on moon’s orbit, and thus very little recession of the moon.

The heat aspect of the friction is not a contributor to the orbital change.

 

[6days]

You seem to equate science with evolution.

I just reviewed every post I have made in this thread, and I said nothing whatsoever about evolution prior to asking why you use the term as you do.

However, I said you were equating science with evolutionism. We both have the exact same evidence...the exact same scientific method etc. We have different beliefs about the past. Your beliefs and my beliefs are not science.

But as you know the word evolution is a mostly meaningless term.

No, I don’t know that, and that is not my experience at all. I have had numerous conversations in which the word “evolution” was central to what was being discussed, and almost never was it ambiguous.

Being oblivious to your fallacy of equivocation does not mean you are 'innocent of the crime'. Evolutionists ALWAYS use the word in ambiguous fallacious ways. The word is used to describe an observable process- adaptation, then in the next breath used to mean their belief in the past- as if this observable process was somehow a proof of their common ancestry beliefs.

I use the word 'evolutionists' referring to people who BELIEVE in everything from nothing....Life from non life....or common ancestry.

If I am talking about people who study biology, I will probably refer to them as biologists.

Sure, we all call them biologists. However, if they are referring to beliefs about the past, we can differentiate between creationists and evolutionists.

“Physicists” refers to those who specialize in the study of matter and energy and their relationship. I don’t see that applying a label (evolutionist) from one specific branch of biology to other scientists who may have no interest, qualifications, or even agreement with that branch of biology facilitates accurate communication. What do you have against employing the accurate normal labels?

Uh..... biologists and physicists work in totally seperate fields of study. There is no need to call a physcist a evolutionist, or a creationist, unless they are talking about their beliefs about the past.

Well we were not discussing 'scientific understanding'.

Au contraire. I have tried to be explicit in seeing if this claim of the moon having a perfect orbit is actually based on science. It has become abundantly clear that no one in this conversation is going to present any science showing what is meant by a perfect moon orbit.

Patrick already answered you about his wording. And I answered that the position of our moon is consistent with the Biblical account.

We were discussing our beliefs, which I suggested is consistent with the evidence.

Clearly you were presenting your beliefs, which you are certainly entitled to. But please, have the integrity to not pretend your beliefs are what constitute science.

Ha.... yes we are both entitled to our beliefs. Perhaps you misunderstood... nobody here claimed our beliefs constitute science. What I did say though is that Biblical creation is consistent with the evidence.

 

[6days]

Has Jason Lisle ever worked as an astrophysicist since he left university? You keep describing him by his qualifications, rather than his actual employment — he is NOT an astrophysicist now, and since his PhD was in solar physics I doubt that any of his higher knowledge is applicable to the study of tidal forces that he has probably never studied. This is obvious from his naïve and hugely simplistic modelling, which involved no Physics whatsoever (He fitted a curve to one data point on a graph if you remember. I would fail my physics students for that sort of incompetence in any assessed research.)

Nope... he did not 'fit a curve to a data point'. He arrived at the data point using known data. You suggested there are unknowns in the past. I agree, and Jadon Lisle has said similar things - the present is not the key to the past.




As to what Lisle is qualified to comment on...your comments are nothing more than ad hominem. It would be like me attacking Richard Dawkins education when he comments on astronomy, paleontogy or theology. (Fields Dawwkins is far less educated in than is Lisle in astronomy).

 

[6days]

For example: there are approx 200 genes common to all living organisms...

Great evidence of a common Designer.

Similarities between different wheels on different cars are evidence of design... no need to reinvent the wheel every year.

 

[6days]

Stripe, let us know when you creationists can all agree on the definition of a "kind"

Silly argument Hunter, since evolutionists can't agree on their own classifications and definitions.

 

[Tyrathca]

How long did it take Mount Saint Helens to carve its own canyon? Those processes that some people reason "must take millions of years" can happen quite quickly. If you watch a couch potato one might conclude it would take him "millions of years" to reach the refrigerator, but then suddenly he moves in a flash..

Which is why I asked.

Directly answering, there's no real limit to "how deep" one might find fossils. Most sedimentary would be from the flood, though there could be pre-flood sedimentary rock as well.

That's a bit of a non answer really. The deeper you have it go the more mass needs to be ejected onto the surface and then deposited (since the sediment has to come from somewhere). Too much and your flood ceases to be raining water but instead requires it to rain rocks and the flood waters to become mud (if not worse, bye bye fishies) . Limiting "most" to the flood makes it worse since you potentially have the Earth needing to churn a not insignificant % of its mass to the surface within only a few days.



Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[Tyrathca]

Nope... he did not 'fit a curve to a data point'. He arrived at the data point using known data. You suggested there are unknowns in the past. I agree, and Jadon Lisle has said similar things - the present is not the key to the past.

But did he arrive at the curve from known data? The data points based on known data aren't being disputed, it is the way he extrapolated from them with little evidence to the accuracy of that extrapolation (anyone can make a formula creating a curve to match known data points, doesn't mean all the curves are meaningful)

As to what Lisle is qualified to comment on...your comments are nothing more than ad hominem. It would be like me attacking Richard Dawkins education when he comments on astronomy, paleontogy or theology. (Fields Dawwkins is far less educated in than is Lisle in astronomy).

This would be a valid complaint if you weren't relying so much on him being an astrophysicist to lend credibility to his model rather than standard evidence showing his model to make accurate predictions (or based on anything other than a narrow set of data points).

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

That didn't stop either of you arguing the case for something you didn't understand.

:darwinsm:

And I gave as much theory as I thought you could follow, yet even that turned out to much beyond your capacities.

Try leaving out the fluff and just have the conversation. :up:

Why don't you do some research on the matter and get back with some questions? I am on my summer break from physics teaching, and I think you ought to do some work for yourself.

Already done. :loser:

Why you ever think you understand more about physics than a physicist, I'll never know. Dunning and Kruger have an idea, I suspect.

Or maybe we have a worthwhile idea. We'll never know while you are so reticent to engage rationally.

If you want to find out about the recession of the Moon, search for "secular acceleration of the Moon"

Start here: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes4.html

Here is a list.

Here is a single link: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes4.html

Now envision a “Pangea” earth, with swaths of continuous ocean all the way around the earth. Minimal friction since the water is always deep, minimal transfer of energy from land to the bulge. Thus the energy gravitationally transferred to the moon is vastly less.

You've bought into a Darwinist save that has a fatal flaw. This is mostly because you've not kept the fundamentals in mind. Energy is not passed between the moon and the Earth via friction; it is passed by gravity.

 

[Rosenritter]

Which is why I asked.
That's a bit of a non answer really. The deeper you have it go the more mass needs to be ejected onto the surface and then deposited (since the sediment has to come from somewhere). Too much and your flood ceases to be raining water but instead requires it to rain rocks and the flood waters to become mud (if not worse, bye bye fishies) . Limiting "most" to the flood makes it worse since you potentially have the Earth needing to churn a not insignificant % of its mass to the surface within only a few days.



Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

Not really. The sediment would be very thick in some areas and not so thick elsewhere. Peaks and lows come into play.

 

[Rosenritter]

Silly argument Hunter, since evolutionists can't agree on their own classifications and definitions.

Mammals bear live young and have hair, right? Except for the ones that don't.

 

[Rosenritter]

Greater friction means more resistance to water flowing to form the tidal bulge. Bulge is more retarded (lags farther behind cislunar point), resulting in greater angle between cislunar line and the line between the bulge and the moon. Greater angle means a higher component (trig tangent function) of the gravitational attraction vector between the moon and the bulge will be in the moon’s orbital direction, effectively “pulling” the moon faster in its orbit.

In ancient Pangea case, very low friction, so bulge was almost on the cislunar line, so almost no effect on moon’s orbit, and thus very little recession of the moon.

The heat aspect of the friction is not a contributor to the orbital change.

Any distortion of the shape of the earth is going to be miniscule, that's not going to do much to affect the moon.

 

[gcthomas]

:darwinsm:

Try leaving out the fluff and just have the conversation. :up:

Already done. :loser:


Or maybe we have a worthwhile idea. We'll never know while you are so reticent to engage rationally.


Start here: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes4.html

Here is a single link: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes4.html

You've bought into a Darwinist save that has a fatal flaw. This is mostly because you've not kept the fundamentals in mind. Energy is not passed between the moon and the Earth via friction; it is passed by gravity.

The flaw in your adherence to the Book of Brown is that Brown neglected to treat the physics behind his arbitrarily quantity C on the page you linked. It is a variable that he treats as a constant, which in turn is proportional to the build angular displacement he labels y.

What causes y? It is essential to the problem, but he ignores the physics and just HOPES it is constant. What could possibly allow the rotation of the Earth to drag the bulge away from the direction of the moon's gravity that cause the bulge? Hmm. Friction. The Earth is rotating under the stationary bulge, so the bulge has to move across the earth's surface throughout reach day. When water moves, there is friction. Deep ocean produces little friction, shallow seas at continental margins produce more. Even Brown concedes that the continents were joined as one in the past. And guess what? That means there was less resistance to the movement of the build, so let's friction, and a smaller y and C value.

So, Brown's naïve treatment in which he leaves out much of the physics leads him to treat as constant quantities that are time variant. In particular, this means he overestimates y, and C, and hence underestimates the time of close approach of the moon

The page you link is intended simply to convince the unsophisticated and uneducated. Stripe, treating Brown as an infallible source is beneath you and leads you to reject all contrary arguments without consideration. Please read more widely about what you pretend to critique: physics of nowhere as simple as you would like to believe.

 

[Stripe]

The flaw in your adherence to the Book of Brown is that Brown neglected to treat the physics behind his arbitrarily quantity C on the page you linked. It is a variable that he treats as a constant, which in turn is proportional to the build angular displacement he labels y.

Nope. This is perfectly acceptable when assuming that the Earth today is what we had over the past.

If you want to employ your save, produce your own model.

What causes y? It is essential to the problem, but he ignores the physics and just HOPES it is constant.

A proportional constant. :chuckle:

What could possibly allow the rotation of the Earth to drag the bulge away from the direction of the moon's gravity that cause the bulge? Hmm. Friction.

We know. And we know why you want to focus on this.

Even Brown concedes that the continents were joined as one in the past.

That oversimplification has nothing to do with this conversation.

That means there was less resistance to the movement of the build, so let's friction, and a smaller y and C value.

Nope. You've forgotten the fundamentals and are instead focusing on details so you can ignore the obvious problem with your save.

So, your naïve treatment, which leaves out the fundamentals, leads you to miss the obvious.

 

[gcthomas]

Nope. This is perfectly acceptable when assuming that the Earth today is what we had over the past.

If you want to employ your save, produce your own model.

A proportional constant. :chuckle:

We know. And we know why you want to focus on this.

That oversimplification has nothing to do with this conversation.

Nope. You've forgotten the fundamentals and are instead focusing on details so you can ignore the obvious problem with your save.

So, your naïve treatment, which leaves out the fundamentals, leads you to miss the obvious.

So instead of adding to the conversation, you criticise emptily and add nothing theism to the discussion.

Don't you ever get bored of writing so much and saying so little? Don't worry, I'm not trying to persuade you, but only expose you to the natural ridicule you bring on yourself for your delusions of expertise.

:chuckle: