Manganese Nodules: Young or Old?

[bob b]

What are these "facts" that support an old earth?

I see no facts that support an old earth, but I do see biased interpretations.

BTW I did find a Yates that is a famous sci-fi screenwriter.

 

[Jukia]

I see no facts that support an old earth, .

Ignorance is indeed bliss.
This is a ridiculous statement coming from you. You are well aware of the factual evidence that supports an old earth. You are well aware of the factual evidence that supports biological evolution. You are well aware of the factual evidence that supports cosmological evolution. You choose simply not to believe it. You chose simply to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, as modified by your own strange interpretation of the evidence (see your prior posts regarding red shifts, blue shifts, green fish, whatever)

 

[fool]

Johnny, I think by rejecting my definition of bias: a belief that leads to a false judgment, that actually, you are admitting that which I earlier stated, that old-earthers, et. al, often refuse to admit that they are biased.

Non sequiter.

With the dictionary definition, then the term bias also applies to a true belief that leads to a correct judgment, and that just seems to make the term useless. A scientist who is partial to truth that he has knowledge of, and who instantly rejects flat-earth or geo-centric arguments, would thereby be called biased. And then the term bias would apply to all sides of every debate, and therefore it becomes useless, and might as well be abandoned. And Fool/Johnny, then it is strange for your side to use bias as a perjorative against my side. And if we're going to neuter the use of the word bias just because the dictionary insufficiently defines it, then we'd have to coin a new word, something like... foolohnny: a belief that leads to a false judment. You guys can use that if you'd like; I'll stick with the common use of the word bias, even though the dictionary insufficiently defines it.

How bout we use the term prejudice.
As in " The Bible teaches that the earth is young, so we know that............"

Talk about bias! Johnny, here's an example of an unbiased statement: "If nodules require millions of years to form, and some have so formed, then my young-earth belief is false."

How bout we use this statement.
"YEC states the Universe is 6000 yrs. old, so if anything found in the universe is older than 6000 yrs., then YEC is false."
Can we use that one?

You should try this kind of thinking. It's liberating.

If you mean unhooking my brain train from the engine of reason and coupling it to the donkey of faith, I'll take a pass, enough people have done that already and someone should stay sober in case there's an emergency.

Now it's your turn.

Oh Boy!

You should be able to say, "Regardless of the age of the earth, when discoveries undermine specific claims of old age, those discoveries do help those who argue for a young earth."

Like Jonny said, finding something young on the Earth dosen't mean that the Earth is young. That's why I mentioned the stalactite that grew on my house overnite.(My wife says it was an icecicle, but she's biased:chuckle: )

But your bias (and likely other factors) prevents you from saying so.

No, the fact that it dosen't follow prevents me from agreeing with it.

I say that scientists commonly make reckless claims of old age. Here's an example: for decades Yellowstone had a sign claiming that the petrified trees at the park in various strata recorded the passage of millions of years, since the first forest evolved, died out, left a few trees which petrified, and that layer was covered up, and then a second strata and forest formed, died out, left a few trees which petrified, and so on, repeatedly, over millions of years.

That sign was there for decades (I first saw it in 1978), and later, I played an indirect role in getting the sign removed. Those petrified trees did not grow in situ on those hillsides in successive forests, as known because they have no root systems, but instead, their roots are all abruptly broken off within a couple feet of their trunks, for these trees were knocked over cataclysmically, and deposited in flood waters which laid down the strata. I presented this evidence to a national park ranger in his home over dinner; and he began a dialogue with his counterpart at Yellowstone, and his urging, along with that of others, succeeded in finally bringing down that sign.

Where you succesful in getting them to put up signs that said "the Earth was poofed into existence 6000yrs. ago by an unpoofed poofer named Yaweh who enjoys the smell of burning goat flesh and wants us to kill all homosexuals"?

Johnny, wouldn't you call that an example of a reckless claim of old age, when that information was known for decades, and withheld, which directly mislead the public into believing they were looking at hard proof for millions of years, when they were not.

No?

You still don't know the age of the trees do you? You just pointed out that they didn't grow there. So , other than the Bible, what makes you think their not millions of years old?

 

[Bob Enyart]

perhaps we should coin foolohnny after all

perhaps we should coin foolohnny after all

Johnny (and now Fool), you (both) crack me up. Johnny, you wrote:

It does not help your position because young earth creationism claims that the Earth is young. Finding young manganese nodules is not evidence of a young earth any more than a 5 year old tree is evidence of a young earth.

Johnny, I agree! (With that last sentence that is.) That would be an inane argument. But you utterly misrepresented my point, and since you have such a commitment to be “scrupulously honest and above reproach,” I’m sure this was accidental, though clear evidence of your bias (which led to a false judgment ).

But then fools joined in…

Like Jonny said, finding something young on the Earth dosen't mean that the Earth is young.

This is sloppy thinking from both of you. I didn’t argue that a young manganese nodule proves that the earth is young. That would be really stupid! I argued that if the formation rate of these nodules, “one of the slowest of all geological phenomena” was greatly underestimated (by the beer-can factor of about 10,000), then we get to discard nodule formation as proof of an old earth.

Agreed?

 

[Jukia]

That would be really stupid! I argued that if the formation rate of these nodules, “one of the slowest of all geological phenomena” was greatly underestimated (by the beer-can factor of about 10,000), then we get to discard nodule formation as proof of an old earth.

Agreed?

If I can jump in, "not agreed".
I think it deserves more investigation rather than basing this statement on a video. It seems clear that the generally accepted scientific position is that these deep sea metallic nodules form slowly. Rather than stating, as I think you did, that those who claimed it took millions of years for the nodules to form had no evidence of that (see last paragraph of your first post) and immediately jumping to a claim that such nodules can form around beer cans, you would be better off investigating further and determining for yourself what evidence there was for the millions of years statement to begin with. If you have neither the time nor the expertise to do so then ask another creationist to do so. Ask someone at AiG, ask bob b, etc.
And also track down Yates, he is the one whose claim you are hanging your hat on. Again, have one of the AiG staff do that. Or better yet whoever it was I first heard on your show several years ago talking about finding organic vegetable matter in a T. rex mouth.

 

[Bob Enyart]

helpful credibility rule for Jukia

helpful credibility rule for Jukia

You are not satisfied with statements made on a video from someone who follows the accepted sceintific line why should anyone who does then take as gospel a statement which questions it without seeing the evidence?

As a general rule, the credibility of a claim increases when it does not reinforce the position of the side making it, and extremely so when it refutes some of their previous strong evidence.

Also, so much of scientific knowledge that you possess is from reports of scientists. Very commonly, we don't "see the evidence;" we read (or see) a report of the evidence.

How bout we use this statement.
"YEC states the Universe is 6000 yrs. old, so if anything found in the universe is older than 6000 yrs., then YEC is false."
Can we use that one?

Fool, YEC more typically states the universe is less than 10,000 years old, so let’s go with that, and then: Yes, but of course. Isn't that the whole point?

-Bob

 

[death2impiety]

As a general rule, the credibility of a claim increases when it does not reinforce the position of the side making it, and extremely so when it refutes some of their previous strong evidence.

Also, so much of scientific knowledge that you possess is from reports of scientists. Very commonly, we don't "see the evidence;" we read (or see) a report of the evidence.



Fool, YEC more typically states the universe is less than 10,000 years old, so let’s go with that, and then: Yes, but of course. Isn't that the whole point?

-Bob

Be as honest and logical as you want Bob, those two things mean nothing to an evolutionist (isn't that obvious by now )

And they aren't biased, they just don't like to consider anything that conflicts with their world view :chuckle:

 

[fool]

Johnny (and now Fool), you (both) crack me up. Johnny, you wrote:


Johnny, I agree! (With that last sentence that is.) That would be an inane argument. But you utterly misrepresented my point, and since you have such a commitment to be “scrupulously honest and above reproach,” I’m sure this was accidental, though clear evidence of your bias (which led to a false judgment ).

But then fools joined in…


This is sloppy thinking from both of you. I didn’t argue that a young manganese nodule proves that the earth is young. That would be really stupid! I argued that if the formation rate of these nodules, “one of the slowest of all geological phenomena” was greatly underestimated (by the beer-can factor of about 10,000), then we get to discard nodule formation as proof of an old earth.

Agreed?

No, Not agreed.
Even if we had the beer can in question, it would only help to improve our understanding of nodule formation. If say this beer can nodule has a 16/th in. concretious coating, that only tells us that you can get 16/th in. of formation in the time since the can was put there. Even this has the limitation of making us guess when it was placed into the environment, it does howerver give us a limit as to how old it can be. The OP mentioned that various factors can effect speed of growth, so size itself is a poor point at which to start pondering the age. Perhaps cutting one open would be helpful, maybe they have rings like trees, maybe they would be a canidate for radiometric dateing, maybe when they get a certain size they start to shrink! who knows? The point is that finding a bowling ball sized nodule wrapped around yesterdays paper does not mean that a pea sized nodule can't be 10,000 yrs. old. So no Bob, we don't get to put our fingers in our ears and say "lalalalalalalala I can't hear you" when nodules are brought up.

 

[fool]

As a general rule, the credibility of a claim increases when it does not reinforce the position of the side making it, and extremely so when it refutes some of their previous strong evidence.

No it dosen't.

Also, so much of scientific knowledge that you possess is from reports of scientists. Very commonly, we don't "see the evidence;" we read (or see) a report of the evidence.

I don't think it's too big a stretch to to ask to see the beer can that is going to turn the current picture of nodule formation on it's ear.
I also don't think it's too much to ask that said beer can be metioned more places than just in a film you saw before we jump on the bandwagon.
I also think it would be prudent to check the credentials of of the beer can nodule positor.
I find it curious that I can't find him even though I looked for an hour.

Fool, YEC more typically states the universe is less than 10,000 years old, so let’s go with that, and then: Yes, but of course. Isn't that the whole point?

Cool I'll put you down as a 10,000 yr guy then.
Just as a quick aside, why not 6,000? wouldn't that be more biblical?

 

[Bob Enyart]

foolohonny

foolohonny

The point is that finding a bowling ball sized nodule wrapped around yesterdays paper does not mean that a pea sized nodule can't be 10,000 yrs. old.

Fool, thanks for making my point (about you that is), again.
No, but it does mean they can form rapidly! Which takes *nodule formation* out of the evidence column for an old-earth!

If say this beer can nodule has a 16/th in. concretious coating, that only tells us that you can get 16/th in. of formation in the time since the can was put there.

Fool, now you're assuming that Yates is as foolish as you are. You should re-read his comment and try to comprehend it. -Bob

 

[fool]

Fool, thanks for making my point (about you that is), again.
No, but it does mean they can form rapidly! Which takes *nodule formation* out of the evidence column for an old-earth!

No Bob wrong again.
Saying they can form rapidly does not mean they all did form rapidly.
Which means you get to take the beer can and my newspaper out of that column, not the rest of the specimens.

Fool, now you're assuming that Yates is as foolish as you are. You should re-read his comment and try to comprehend it. -Bob

Yates comment-
John Yates, Marine Geologist: Later discoveries of manganese nodules found that some of the concretions were actually [formed] around beer cans, which obviously are not millions of years old. So, there was a dichotomy. The nodules appeared to grow at different rates, depending on the supply of minerals. There was also a link established between the formation of manganese nodules, and the level of activity in the plankton in the ocean above. In fact, the link appeared to be that the tritus, from the plankton, actually contributed to the formation of the nodules.

Read the bold Bob.

 

[bob b]

Ignorance is indeed bliss.
This is a ridiculous statement coming from you. You are well aware of the factual evidence that supports an old earth. You are well aware of the factual evidence that supports biological evolution. You are well aware of the factual evidence that supports cosmological evolution. You choose simply not to believe it. You chose simply to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, as modified by your own strange interpretation of the evidence (see your prior posts regarding red shifts, blue shifts, green fish, whatever)

factual evidence?

No. We creationists simply interpret the exact same "factual evidence" according to the received truth that the Earth and universe were created in 6 days.

Evolutionists simply interpret the exact same "factual evidence" according to their bias that the Earth must be billions of years old.

I have shown you previously how the light from stars billions of light years away reaches the Earth, despite the fact that the Earth and universe were created in 6 days less than 10,000 years ago, but your bias prevents you from accepting the truth.

The "factual evidence" for a young earth is staring you in the face, but you have been deceived by the media and educational institutions into ignoring it.

 

[Bob Enyart]

shout it from the mountaintops

shout it from the mountaintops

Johnny and Fool, you have both established that evidence is not especially relevant to you. You both refuse to admit that discoveries that refute specific claims of old age would help YECists who oppose evidence of an old earth.

Fool quoted me, and then replied:
Bob: You should be able to say, "Regardless of the age of the earth, when discoveries undermine specific claims of old age, those discoveries do help those who argue for a young earth."
Fool: No, the fact that it doesn't follow prevents me from agreeing with it.

And Johnny did likewise, by claiming that…

finding a manganese nodule around a beer can does not help young earth creationists.

So, these old-earthers show their true lack of objectivity and disrespect for evidence and argumentation, by insisting that evidence for one side, when refuted, does not help the other side. Bias.

As I've pointed out, proof that nodules can form rapidly takes *nodule formation* out of the evidence column for an old-earth. But here's where Johnny/Fool have difficulty: they behave as though no "evidence column" for an old earth need even exist (and hence they comfort themselves in that nothing can ever be removed from such a non-existent column). They effectively maintain that the earth is old by secular declaration, and therefore neither can an "evidence column" exist for a young earth. (Whereas I admit that if we could show that nodule formation has taken millions of years, then not only is that evidence of an old earth, it is proof.) Thus Johnny/Fool demean evidence, even though they give it lip service.

Until Johnny and Fool admit that when a debunked old-age process is removed from the old-age evidence column, that thereby helps the young earth side, they shout their bias from the rooftops (and betray their fear).

-Bob

 

[Bob Enyart]

Corrected by a fool (it's happened before)

Corrected by a fool (it's happened before)

Fool caught me using incorrect logic:

Johnny, I think by rejecting my definition of bias: a belief that leads to a false judgment, that actually, you are admitting that which I earlier stated, that old-earthers, et. al, often refuse to admit that they are biased.

Non sequiter.

YES! Fool is right. That is a non-sequitur. What WAS I thinking? I recant the part about this being an admission from Johnny. That sentence came together wrongly. Sorry. -Bob

 

[Johnny]

Clearly Johnny can be found at home sucking his thumb hoping this thread would just go away.

Wow, just wow. I'll be back later to respond. It's on like donkey kong.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Wow, just wow. I'll be back later to respond. It's on like donkey kong.

"It's on like donkey kong"?


So you replied to say you'll reply later??
Wow, I'm certainly afraid to match wits with statements like that?

 

[Jukia]

I have shown you previously how the light from stars billions of light years away reaches the Earth, despite the fact that the Earth and universe were created in 6 days less than 10,000 years ago, but your bias prevents you from accepting the truth.

.

Uh, no, you made statements to that effect but you did not "show" me anything other than your acceptance, as an accurate science text, of a book written thousands of years ago

 

[Bob Enyart]

2.7

2.7

Jukia, regarding light from stars billions of light-years away:

Both YEC and the Inflationary Big Bang propose that at the beginning, light filled the universe (it's current size) dramatically faster than the speed of light would have allowed it to do. Secularists begin and end this inflation by an unknown force which they have faith in. YEC quote the Bible which states repeatedly that God stretched out the heavens. I believe that He supernaturally strectched out the universe, and thereby pulled the light from the stars and galaxies to fill the heavens, which was His purpose.

By the way, unlike your BB, my biblical observation is NOT inconsistenet with the consistent cosmic microwave background CMB temperature which defies BB cosmology since in 20 bilions-of-years or so, there has simply been insufficient time for the temperature of the universe to even out to within less than a hundreth of a degree or so! This is the kind of evidence against an old earth/universe that I like to use, evidence from the broadest of scientific observations.

-Bob

 

[Jukia]

As a general rule, the credibility of a claim increases when it does not reinforce the position of the side making it, and extremely so when it refutes some of their previous strong evidence.

Also, so much of scientific knowledge that you possess is from reports of scientists. Very commonly, we don't "see the evidence;" we read (or see) a report of the evidence.

I'm really not sure I agree with your first paragraph. In this particular case, a statement that metal concretions can form on beer cans which seems to refute some prior evidence should not be taken on faith from the statement of someone on a video. Again, I suggest that you get some of your AiG buddies to track Yates down and get some specifics. Has he done a study and published it?

The best way to "see" the evidence, other than doing the work yourself, is to look at the published studies. Not quite the same as taking on faith a statement in a video made for the general public

 

[Johnny]

With the dictionary definition, then the term bias also applies to a true belief that leads to a correct judgment, and that just seems to make the term useless.

No, it does not render the term useless. It lets you know about how the judgement was made. The judgement could turn out to be right or wrong. It is important to note whether or not a stance or argument is inherently biased, because it tells you about the process with which the conclusion was arrived at. It also tells you how likely it is that the conclusion is the correct conclusion. A biased conclusion, one that had a partial judgement, is statistically less likely to be correct than a conclusion based strictly on evidence. This is why the young earth creationist position is inherently weaker. It assumes from the outset that all evidence against a young earth must be inherently wrong, and thus the evidence can never be objectively approached.

You guys can use that if you'd like; I'll stick with the common use of the word bias, even though the dictionary insufficiently defines it.

What I find humorous is your rejection of the very definition of bias because it includes you. Redefinining it and calling the dictionary definition "insufficient" is quite an interesting tactic. While you are at it, you may want to go ahead and redefine evidence, observation, refutation, evolution, science, and intelligent design to suit your purposes--which it seems you have taken the liberty of doing with your "evolve.exe" fraud.

I say that scientists commonly make reckless claims of old age.

I know you do. I don't need another example of you making that claim. I've already stated that you are in absolutely no position to evaluate whether or not a claim was reckless.

Once again you have ignored the two fundamental arguments I put forth earlier: 1) You aren't in a position to evaluate, and 2) A claim that turns out to be wrong isn't always reckless. Are you purposefully avoiding responding to these?

Talk about bias!

How is that bias? You've just restated your claim. You included no argument. I already explained my position which you have utterly failed to respond to. Just out of curiosity, is it the "bias" from Bob's book of his own definitions, or is it in the one the rest of the world uses? For those reading, I said: "It does not help your position because young earth creationism claims that the Earth is young. Finding young manganese nodules is not evidence of a young earth any more than a 5 year old tree is evidence of a young earth."

You should try this kind of thinking. It's liberating.

Although you may consider yourself quite the free thinker, restricting your worldview to your own literal interpretation of genesis is not exactly liberating.

Johnny, wouldn't you call that an example of a reckless claim of old age, when that information was known for decades, and withheld, which directly mislead the public into believing they were looking at hard proof for millions of years, when they were not.

I don't know, I've never read about the case. Certainly hearing your account is insufficient to make a judgement. While your followers will unquestioningly follow their leader, your history of being absolutely embarassingly wrong (remember the pleiades fiasco? I do.) leads me to be skeptical of your account. You've lied before. You'll lie again. ThePhy and taoist did a nice job of exposing you for the fraud you are, but alas, your dedicated apostles wasted no time assuring your image would not be tarnished. Afterall, we don't want guests messing up the party, do we?