Manganese Nodules: Young or Old?

[Turbo]

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?

It's an order-of-magnitude thing.

Note that Bob said less than 10,000. Also note that 6,000 is less than 10,000.

 

[Johnny]

That's the problem with evolutionists. They're not taught how to think -- they're taught what to think.

And you know that how? That's a mighty bold (and unsupportable) statement from a YEC.

And on to more from Bob Enyart:

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.

While I disagree, I have to ask whether or not you are saying that evolutionists or "old earthers" are the one who made that claim? Afterall, you told me "welcome to our world" and implied that things like this never get said by mainstream science.

Very commonly, we don't "see the evidence;" we read (or see) a report of the evidence.

You could ask. Institutions do this all the time. A sample is studied and a paper is published. Another university asks to see the sample and does the same thing. When the results differ, it is made known.

No, but it does mean they can form rapidly! Which takes *nodule formation* out of the evidence column for an old-earth!

Bob, respond to fool on this. He said, "Saying they can form rapidly does not mean they all did form rapidly." just in case you glazed over it. Do not ignore this.

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.

Again, you have blatantly ignored what I responded with earlier. You did not respond to it. Instead you repeated your claim. You're embarassing yourself now.

As I've pointed out, proof that nodules can form rapidly takes *nodule formation* out of the evidence column for an old-earth

What? Are you serious? I can form all kinds of crazy elements in a lab in under 4 hours. Are you saying that this is proof that it happens fast in nature?

 

[Johnny]

And finally I bring myself to respond to our friend ApologeticJedi.

As I understand it, Johnny suggests:

1) The video doesn't really exist, and if that is proved wrong....

Go ahead and quote your support for that. I challenge you.

2) The video is incorrect because I can't find the scientific publishing, and if someone produces that

I said I'm skeptical. I did not say that the video was incorrect. I asked for a report.

3) I don't think Yates is a real scientist, and if someone can show that he is....

I did not assert that. I said that he's hard to track down.

Are you shocked by my skeptical atittude towards some guy who said something on some video? Because I can show you any video where some guy said some thing. I know verifying claims as best as possible might be a new concept to YEC, but it is part of my routine.

4) Enyart isn't smart enough to understand science anyway so doubt anything he says based on my word.

Don't base it on my word. Enroll in a basic college level biology course. Then, come back and report on all the things you've learned and make your own decision. You don't even have to believe what they're saying. All you have to do is see how often Bob Enyart completely misrepresents science so he can stretch out some sort of argument against a strawman idea (like his evolve.exe program). That's what (the prevalent strawmanning, that is) first tipped me off to the fraud that is YEC.

 

[Jukia]

Don't base it on my word. Enroll in a basic college level biology course. .

You know I have suggested numerous times that certain people on here learn some science but I am not sure it has ever happened. So good suggestion but one not likely to be followed.

 

[Bob Enyart]

2 direct answers; 3 direct questions

2 direct answers; 3 direct questions

Johnny, I’ll directly address your two points, and hope that’ll you’ll directly answer some questions for me:

1) You aren't in a position to evaluate [whether a claim is reckless], and 2) A claim that turns out to be wrong isn't always reckless.

(1) I’m not a trained scientist, and I can easily be wrong regarding a scientific statement of my own, and so my claims should be evaluated for truth, as should everyones'. Yet it does not take an oncology expert to sense reckless tobacco-industry claims, nor an expert lawyer to sense reckless law practices, nor an expert economist to sense reckless monetary policy. Regarding old age, we can document common reckless claims of old-age (such as at Yellowstone; the stalactites at Carlsbad Cavern [the park no longer says they take millions of years to form, but rates depend upon the availability of water]; micro-strata formation; polystrate fossils and 7-layers of jellyfish fossils spanning a million-years; etc.). Now, here is an example of me identifying a reckless claim:

I assure you, if it was found, it would have been published.

That’s a reckless assurance, especially from someone who daily reminds himself to be scrupulously above reproach in scientific discussions. Not alll finds contrary to the status quo get published. Also, you wrote:

”you probably do not care to understand why [nodules are said to form over millions of years.]"

Actually, I’d enjoy reading a defense of that position. Any old-earther should feel free to link to the best such explanation you can find so all thread participants can enjoy it.

(2) Of course, every incorrect claim is not reckless, and to suggest otherwise would be foolish. To attempt to discredit my instinctive claim of recklessness here, you’ll have to produce that link I’ve asked for, and we’ll see how strong the evidence was for the claim that “nodule growth is one of the slowest of all geological phenomena,” “mm/million years.”

Johnny, if you could answer yes or no to these questions (along with any clarification, etc.), that would be so great:

BEQ1-J: Would you agree that geo-chronometry evidence can be sorted into two columns to evaluate two opposing views, a young earth column, and an old-earth column? Yes or No?

BEQ2-J: Would you agree that evidence for million-year nodule formation would get checked into the old-earth column? Yes or No?

BEQ3-J: Would you agree that if otherwise typical, “million-year” sized nodules can be shown to have formed since the advent of modern breweries, that nodules would have to be removed from the old-earth column, unless additional evidence indicated that other existing nodules could not have formed rapidly?

 

[bob b]

FERROMANGANESE NODULES

Description: Ferromanganese nodules similar to those found on the deep sea floor occur in several lakes in Wisconsin, including Lake Michigan. They consist of a mixture of manganese oxides, iron oxides, sand and clay. They are small and not of economic value, but are likely more widespread than reported. They form by precipitation from lake and ground water in areas where the influx of other sediment is low. The Lake Michigan nodules with up to 22% Mn were first found in 5 localities within Green Bay and another in Lake Michigan off the coast of Kewaunee County (Rossman and Callender1968). Rossman et. al (1972) noted that the nodules were 0.5 to 5 mm. in diameter and contain layers of todorokite, birnessite and "psilomelane" interspersed with layers of iron oxides. The nodules generally form concentrically around a nucleus of rock, clay. quartz or feldspar.

--------

Prace PIG (1998) - Vol. 163
By PIG
Author : Danuta TROKOWICZ

Title: GENESIS OF FERROMANGANESE NODULES IN THE BALTIC SEA
(with 15 Figures and 7 Plates)

Abstract. The processes of formation of shallow water ferromanganese nodules in the Baltic Sea were investigated. Their formation is related to specific hydrodynamic and sedimentological conditions. Factors contributing to the formation of ferromanganese nodules (mineralogical and chemical composition, occurrences) are following: low sedimentation rate, bottom currents, physicochemical characteristics of the environment (pH, Eh), calcite dissolution rate, chiefly erosional and non-depositional conditions or diagenetic changes in sediment (diffusion of Mn+2 in the pore water), the geographical and vertical distribution of heavy metals, rare earth elements in sediments, the Atlantic Ocean water inflow, continental waters influxes and biological productivity in the surface waters. Microorganisms are important in the iron and manganese cycles in helping to dissolve metals in sediments of reducing zone and in precipitating them as hydroxides (ferruginous bacteria and biological oxidation). Baltic nodules are located mainly in the aerated waters on gravely sands, sand-silt-gravel, silty sands, clayey sands and on all types of eroded older sediments.

 

[Johnny]

Yet it does not take an oncology expert to sense reckless tobacco-industry claims, nor an expert lawyer to sense reckless law practices, nor an expert economist to sense reckless monetary policy.

You only see these things because of expert oncologists, law strategists, and economists have exposed the other side and you take their word on it. Have you ever done a double-blind study to confirm the relationship between cancer and smoking? Probably not. You take the oncologist's word for it. The data is available, just like the data for every evolutionary claim is available for scrutiny.

There is a problem though. It is unlikely (and in fact not possible) that a person not educated in medicine would ever understand a medical journal article. Only other medical scientists and physicians are in a good position to truely evaluate the original work. It often takes a science writer to take the technical writings and translate them into every day language. Unfortunately, much like translating the bible, pop-science and Newsweek science don't always get it right. Further, the people reading Newsweek and popsci articles don't know the difference.

The same principle is the sole reason creationism (and ID) still have life. Most people--and indeed many Christians-are not educated in the biological sciences. They rely soley on secondary information distributed to them. So when you come along with a program like evolve.exe, many of your followers probably think you're making a good point. But all it would take is a basic level biology course to see that the program is a sham and a fraud. And when asked to defend it, your followers can only point to you. They have not critically thought the process over themselves, and indeed most will not take the time to. I'm not saying that you need a doctorate education in Biology to evaluate these claims. I challenge anyone that has taken general biology in college to step up and honestly defend your program. Anyone who has taken general biology realizes that your program does not, in the least bit, simulate evolution. And further, most creationist claims can be dismantled by a third or fourth year biology student. I've always found it interesting that the greater level of education you receive the more likely you are to believe in some form of evolution. 95% of scientists believe in some form of evolution, whereas only 27% of people with no high school diploma believe in some form of evolution. I'm getting off on a tangent here.

Regarding old age, we can document common reckless claims of old-age (such as at Yellowstone; the stalactites at Carlsbad Cavern [the park no longer says they take millions of years to form, but rates depend upon the availability of water]; micro-strata formation; polystrate fossils and 7-layers of jellyfish fossils spanning a million-years; etc.).

How do you know the claims were reckless claims? As I've stated 3 times now, wrong claims are not always reckless claims. If I have a patient in the hospital who presents with certain signs, I go with the best course of action until lab values come back and there is data to indicate otherwise. If the data shows that my initial assessment was wrong, that does not mean that my initial course of action was a reckless course of action. In fact, with the available data, it was the best course of action. The process of science is very similar. Often times science posits ideas based on the available data. Later data indicates that the first claim was wrong, and books are rewritten, signs are removed, etc. This in no way indicates that the claim was reckless.

Furthermore, two signs outside of national parks do not constitute science making reckless claims. Trying to extrapolate signs outside of national parks to scientific consensus is misleading. Right now there are probably many park science that contain outdated science. You also stated that it was your dialog with a park ranger that had the signs removed, not any process involving the scientific establishment.

I am not going to address claims of reckless science specifically unless you want to focus attention on a single claim (manganese nodules?). I do not have the time to research each and every claim you make.

BEQ1-J: Would you agree that geo-chronometry evidence can be sorted into two columns to evaluate two opposing views, a young earth column, and an old-earth column? Yes or No?

Could you restate that question differently?

BEQ2-J: Would you agree that evidence for million-year nodule formation would get checked into the old-earth column? Yes or No?

Yes.

BEQ3-J: Would you agree that if otherwise typical, “million-year” sized nodules can be shown to have formed since the advent of modern breweries, that nodules would have to be removed from the old-earth column, unless additional evidence indicated that other existing nodules could not have formed rapidly?

Yes, but there are things that need to be emphasized here. The first one is the word "if". I cannot find any supporting evidence that they have formed since the advent of modern breweries. The second thing that needs to be emphasized is the last half of your sentence. Often times manmade compounds and chemicals can accelerate natural processes (if you'd like an example I will provide).

Now, I have a whole slew of comments on this exchange that I would like you to address:

1) You have not validated your claim that these claims were reckless. As you agreed, wrong claims are not always reckless claims. You said that your claim was "instinctive" and I had to attempt to discredit your claim. That is very close to an argumentum ad ignorantiam. As such, it is implied that you have not read the literature and are not familiar with manganese nodule formation. Thus, your claim is unsubstantiated and unjustified. It constitutes what I would consider (and webster agrees) "reckless" and is misleading to your followers. This is an absolutely elementary aspect of both science and debate. It is quite revealing that you still struggle with this concept. You said: "To attempt to discredit my instinctive claim of recklessness here, you’ll have to produce that link I’ve asked for, and we’ll see how strong the evidence was for the claim that “nodule growth is one of the slowest of all geological phenomena,” “mm/million years.”". That's called shifting the burden of proof, and again it is an elementary mistake that you're making here.

2) I defined help with a dictionary, followed by why manganese nodules do not constitute helping the idea of a young earth. You did not address my definition nor did you assert how it has advanced your position. Instead, you restated your original claim without any mention of my arguments. Please address these before you bring up the point again.

3) Since when is redefining word to mean something other than what the dictionary directly states an acceptable debate strategy? I could sit here all day and make up definitions for words I don't like.

4) You claim that if manganese nodules can form rapidly, they must be removed from the old-earth evidence catagory. This is catagorically untrue. Processes which occur very slow naturally can occur very fast under unnatural conditions.

5) You still insist that I am wrong by claiming "that evidence for one side, when refuted, does not help the other side." Yet the burden of proof is undeniably on each individual side. If one of my evidences fails, it does not make your position any truer.

6) You are also very close to plurium interrogationum, or a logical fallacy consisting arguing complex issues with simple questions. This is seen often here. Nonetheless, I will comply unless I feel that the issue cannot be addressed with a simple answer.

 

[fool]

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.

That's another vote for knowing what you'll find before you look.

 

[bob b]

Very impressive tirade johnny, but the question still remains: how do we know how old the nodules are?

 

[fool]

Johnny and Fool, you have both established that evidence is not especially relevant to you.

I thought we we're talking about evidence, a beer can if I recall :think:

You both refuse to admit that discoveries that refute specific claims of old age would help YECists who oppose evidence of an old earth.

Yes, because it's a non sequiter.
And pretending that that it isn't is a strawman.

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…

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.

Why the talk of "sides" when we're talking about the age of a rock?
Why don't we talk about facts?
Facts seem to be strangly missing from this thread.
Perhaps if we had some facts we could develop further.
Maybe we could find the Yates guy and get the real skinny on this beer can.
Maybe someone with some clout could break down some doors and find beer can Yates and ask him some questions like "what brand was it? steel or aluminum? pop top or pull tab? ever write anything about it? where is the can now?
Maybe a famous published author with his own talk show could even interveiw him!
Great idea Bob!

As I've pointed out, proof that nodules can form rapidly takes *nodule formation* out of the evidence column for an old-earth.

As I've pointed out, Proof that nodules can form rapidly does not prove that all nodules are less than 10,000 years old.

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).

Pretending that there are only two different "coulmns" into which facts must fit is a false dilema

They effectively maintain that the earth is old by secular declaration,

I'm flatered you found it so effective, as far as the rest of your sentence, I thought we we're talking about a beer can.

and therefore neither can an "evidence column" exist for a young earth.

I told you the story about the stalactite that grew on my house over night.
You can put that in your "evidence column".




:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

(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.)

Actually, if we can find any thing older then 10,000 years then your worldveiw crumbles.

Thus Johnny/Fool demean evidence, even though they give it lip service.

I'll be paying lip service to a cold beer while I listen to beer can Yates telllin us about his beer can node on the most powerful AM station in Denver :cheers:

Until Johnny and Fool admit that when a debunked old-age process is removed from the old-age evidence column,

I think I agree that people should take any nodes they have out of their "column" until the likely side effects are known.

that thereby helps the young earth side, they shout their bias from the rooftops (and betray their fear).

You're right Bob, right now I'm standing on my roof shouting "Please God! take this node from my column! I can bear it no longer!"

 

[fool]

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

:doh: Johnny no! You let the rabbit distract you from the fox!

 

[fool]

It's an order-of-magnitude thing.

Note that Bob said less than 10,000. Also note that 6,000 is less than 10,000.

Where are you at on the question Turbo?
I've met YECs runnin anywhere from 6,000 to 40,000 yrs.
At what point are you not YEC?

 

[fool]

FERROMANGANESE NODULES

Description: Ferromanganese nodules similar to those found on the deep sea floor occur in several lakes in Wisconsin, including Lake Michigan. They consist of a mixture of manganese oxides, iron oxides, sand and clay. They are small and not of economic value, but are likely more widespread than reported. They form by precipitation from lake and ground water in areas where the influx of other sediment is low. The Lake Michigan nodules with up to 22% Mn were first found in 5 localities within Green Bay and another in Lake Michigan off the coast of Kewaunee County (Rossman and Callender1968). Rossman et. al (1972) noted that the nodules were 0.5 to 5 mm. in diameter and contain layers of todorokite, birnessite and "psilomelane" interspersed with layers of iron oxides. The nodules generally form concentrically around a nucleus of rock, clay. quartz or feldspar.

--------

Prace PIG (1998) - Vol. 163
By PIG
Author : Danuta TROKOWICZ

Title: GENESIS OF FERROMANGANESE NODULES IN THE BALTIC SEA
(with 15 Figures and 7 Plates)

Abstract. The processes of formation of shallow water ferromanganese nodules in the Baltic Sea were investigated. Their formation is related to specific hydrodynamic and sedimentological conditions. Factors contributing to the formation of ferromanganese nodules (mineralogical and chemical composition, occurrences) are following: low sedimentation rate, bottom currents, physicochemical characteristics of the environment (pH, Eh), calcite dissolution rate, chiefly erosional and non-depositional conditions or diagenetic changes in sediment (diffusion of Mn+2 in the pore water), the geographical and vertical distribution of heavy metals, rare earth elements in sediments, the Atlantic Ocean water inflow, continental waters influxes and biological productivity in the surface waters. Microorganisms are important in the iron and manganese cycles in helping to dissolve metals in sediments of reducing zone and in precipitating them as hydroxides (ferruginous bacteria and biological oxidation). Baltic nodules are located mainly in the aerated waters on gravely sands, sand-silt-gravel, silty sands, clayey sands and on all types of eroded older sediments.

A big thanks to Bobb for some good info on Whateverthatwasabout. :BRAVO:
The next time I get over to the west coast of the greatest peninsula on Earth I'll pick up a bucket of em.

 

[sentientsynth]

Johnny,

About Bob's evolve.exe program.

This is a fair representation of genetic mutation on the nucleotide level. The basic principle is the same.

Oh....you're probably wondering why I posted this? Just to say that I'm a Christian with some biology background that thinks Bob's evolve.exe program is legit.

And, by the way, Johnny, the word "Bible" is capitalized.

SS

 

[Bob Enyart]

6+ answers; 1 question

6+ answers; 1 question

Johnny, even though I’m a tad-bit aggressive in this email, I want you to know that I’m enjoying debating with you. I don’t have time to re-write and tone down some of this. But I’ll try to be more civil from here on out. And by the way, I want to know the truth. If you can show that no beer-can nodules were ever found, I’d be happy to pay you a $200 fact-checking fee (paypal acceptable?)! Let’s get on with it:

Have you ever done a double-blind study to confirm the relationship between cancer and smoking? Probably not. You take the oncologist's word for it.

I doubt the common folk in the 1800s joked of cigarettes as coffin nails after hearing expert testimony.
Law strategists? If the public evaluated attorneys based on the claims of the legal profession, they wouldn’t rate lawyers next to used car salesmen.
And all the economists of the Soviet Union combined had a hard time convincing the masses that they were prosperous.
Johnny, you sound like a Catholic bishop who says, “You can’t understand the Bible on your own. You have to either wear a robe, or trust the experts.”

Regarding evolve.exe, I’ll be happy to defend it with you on another thread; but first, if ThePhy will do so in January, I’m hoping to conclude our “time dilation” discussion, and then if you’d like to challenge me directly on the evolve program: great!

You asked me to restate BEQ1-J: Would you agree that geo-chronometry evidence can be sorted into two columns to evaluate two opposing views, a young earth column, and an old-earth column?

Sure. But you immediately then answered my YE/OE Evidence Columns questions Q2 & Q3. So I’m a bit unsure of why you couldn’t answer this question. Anyway, here goes:

BEQ1b-J: Two views exist regarding the age of the earth: young earth, and old earth. Also, human beings make careful observations of the world, and those observations will be interpreted differently by adherents of the opposing views of YE and OE. Do you agree that those who hold either view on the age of the earth can sort that evidence into Evidence Columns, one of which is titled Young Earth Evidence, and the other of which is titled Old Earth Evidence. Of course, either side may wrongly categorize evidence. But I’m asking you: is this paradigm valid for evaluating evidence for the age of the earth?​

So, please answer Yes or No, if you can, BEQ1b-J. And then you answered this question:

Bob: BEQ3-J: Would you agree that if otherwise typical, “million-year” sized nodules can be shown to have formed since the advent of modern breweries, that nodules would have to be removed from the old-earth column, unless additional evidence indicated that other existing nodules could not have formed rapidly?

Johnny: Yes, but there are things that need to be emphasized here. The first one is the word "if".

Yes. Of course. And while I believe Yates is credible, you and the OEers here hold out hope that he is wrong. (Please don’t deny this, it would be too niggling.) Let me give you an example of how I think you showed your hand, when you quoted me, and then disagreed:

Bob: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.

Johnny: I disagree…​

No! Say it isn’t so! I would never have guessed. I think this thread has sufficiently established that you and OEers here are inclined to knee-jerk disagreement. It is silly to disagree with virtually everything stated, even careful generic statements which in other contexts would be easily acknowledged. Come on. I could agree with Fool when he caught me in a gaffe. Now it’s your turn. You should admit that this simple and obvious rule is generally (NOT ALWAYS, BUT GENERALLY), true.

You don’t want to admit this general rule, because it shows, not that I am correct, but that I am not unreasonable to trust his report.

Then, your last six questions:

Johnny: 1) You have not validated your claim that these claims were reckless…. You said: "…you’ll have to produce that link I’ve asked for, and we’ll see how strong the evidence was for the claim that “nodule growth is one of the slowest of all geological phenomena,” “mm/million years.”". That's called shifting the burden of proof…

Bob: I’ll answer generally, and then specifically: Generally, I believe that the overwhelming evidence shows a young earth/solaar system/universe. Thus, in my worldview, OE claims are *generally* reckless (and you believe the same of YE claims). Specifically, I got my information from a geologist whose general reliability is attested to by World Almanac, who stated matter-of-factly that incontrovertible evidence exists of rapid nodule formation. And earlier, I gave five examples of what I consider to be reckless claims of old age, which age is now discredited. You reasonably (by time constraints, etc.) did not want to address all these. But I stress the example of the root-less successive forests that supposedly grew eon after eon in situ, giving the false impression that the *formation process* demanded great age. Resisting the effort to correct the record was reckless and I submit that there are many such examples of reckless knee-jerk claims of old-age which today have been discredited. Johnny, if you don’t enjoy YEers being able to point to discredited claims of old age, then advocate caution to those who make such claims. I see Yates as shifting the burden of proof to where it belongs, by publicly discrediting the *formation rate* claim with such a humorous example, stated so matter-of-factly. As for me, that shift is consistent with my general YE view of reckless claims of old age.

Johnny: 2) I defined help with a dictionary, followed by why manganese nodules do not constitute helping the idea of a young earth. You did not address my definition nor did you assert how it has advanced your position. Instead, you restated your original claim without any mention of my arguments. Please address these before you bring up the point again.

Bob: Since you answered affirmatively, BEQ2-J and BEQ3-J, I think you will realize that you have answered your own question.

Johnny: 3) Since when is redefining word to mean something other than what the dictionary directly states an acceptable debate strategy?

Bob: Since my definition for bias is better. Johnny, I guess you can’t see it, that even a commitment to evidence is itself unavoidably a bias (unless of course, you use my definition ). You wrote, “A biased conclusion, one that had a partial judgement, is statistically less likely to be correct than a conclusion based strictly on evidence.” That statement itself is biased; it is partial toward an anti-nihilistic view. Bias is “a belief that leads to a false judgment.” Otherwise, everything is biased, and the word becomes useless .

4) You claim that if manganese nodules can form rapidly, they must be removed from the old-earth evidence catagory. This is catagorically untrue. Processes which occur very slow naturally can occur very fast under unnatural conditions.

You’re over-exertion here contradicts the answer you already gave to BEQ3-J. You answered Yes, that “nodules would have to be removed from the old-earth column, unless additional evidence indicated that other existing nodules could not have formed rapidly.” And since neither of us has done the requisite re-evaluation of nodule formation rates, given that they can form rapidly, at least for now, you have to suck it up, and remove *nodule formation* from the Old Earth column. If you can produce evidence that equates to the pre-brewery view, that for certain nodules, formation requires millions of years, then you can put that newly established evidence into your column. You wrote, “Processes which occur very slow naturally can occur very fast under unnatural conditions.” Of course (or with enzymes)! But I sure hope you’re not depending upon that general truth to put a nodule formation check mark in the Old Earth column. To re-check nodules, you would need to show specific evidence for this case:
* what conditions would prohibit rapid nodule formation anciently; then
* show that those conditions existed; and
* then that at least some of our nodules formed under those conditions.
You over-reached here Johnny.

Johnny: 5) You still insist that I am wrong by claiming "that evidence for one side, when refuted, does not help the other side." Yet the burden of proof is undeniably on each individual side. If one of my evidences fails, it does not make your position any truer.

Bob: Absolutely. But perhaps you’re being too stingy with the concept of “help.” If five contrary claims to a view need to be discredited before someone will consider an alternative view, then each time another claim is discredited, that helps the proponents of the alternative view. Let’s skip obvious examples. I never claimed that rapid formation is proof of YE, but to debunk yet another “million-year process” helps YE creationism. Oh, and by the way, it is an ism, that is, a systematic worldview, and that worldview is undeniably energized and easier to promote every time we can discard a million years here or there. Again, you confused proof with help, and should just drop that one also, because it’s simply diversionary.

Johnny: 6) You are also very close to plurium interrogationum, or a logical fallacy consisting arguing complex issues with simple questions…

Bob: That’s the second time (see above, Johnny: 1) that you accused me of being “close” to some error. You know, we might need to coin another term, a logical fallacy for those who repeatedly accuse others of being “close” to an error, implying that the addition of multiple “close” errors add up to an actual error .

-Bob​

 

[Jukia]

Very impressive tirade johnny, but the question still remains: how do we know how old the nodules are?

I think it is incumbent upon those who dispute the generally accepted science to show their evidence. Waiting for the beer can info. and tracking down Yates. C'mon AiG!

And without really having much background and, based in part on the abstracts you posted about fresh water nodules, my guess is that the age estimates are based on
1. physical chemistry involving the % of the metal in the specific water,
2. currents in the area
3. an estimate of the age of the ocean floor at the location
4. perhaps the location of hydro thermal vents
5. the availability of items around which the metals seem to form, perhaps like pearls forming in oysters?

I suspect there are studies and papers written on the issue but I have no time to double check, although as noted above, I think you have the burden of proof when attacking generally accepted science. So go to it.

 

[bob b]

I think it is incumbent upon those who dispute the generally accepted science to show their evidence. Waiting for the beer can info. and tracking down Yates. C'mon AiG!

And without really having much background and, based in part on the abstracts you posted about fresh water nodules, my guess is that the age estimates are based on
1. physical chemistry involving the % of the metal in the specific water,
2. currents in the area
3. an estimate of the age of the ocean floor at the location
4. perhaps the location of hydro thermal vents
5. the availability of items around which the metals seem to form, perhaps like pearls forming in oysters?

I suspect there are studies and papers written on the issue but I have no time to double check, although as noted above, I think you have the burden of proof when attacking generally accepted science. So go to it.

It is increasingly clear to all that "generally accepted science" is your excuse for believing that the universe and life do not require an intelligence behind it.

Of course it was this same "generally accepted science" that was the Church's excuse for doubting Galileo to the point where many refused to even look through his telescope to see the moons circling the planets.

As you have pointed out in your posting there are many variables involved in the generation of manganese nodules. Thus one might reasonably conclude that it is simply an article of faith for people to believe that it took millions of years for them to form. Using their "great age" to support an ancient Earth is not science, it is religion.

 

[Jukia]

It is increasingly clear to all that "generally accepted science" is your excuse for believing that the universe and life do not require an intelligence behind it.

.

As it is increasingly clear that your failure to acknowledge such a thing as "generally accepted science" is your excuse to avoid looking critically at evidence.

 

[bob b]

As it is increasingly clear that your failure to acknowledge such a thing as "generally accepted science" is your excuse to avoid looking critically at evidence.

False charge. I looked into the manganese nodule generation situation and posted some relevent information. This one simple case of examining the evidence dwarfs anything you have ever done on these forums other than express your belief in "generally accepted science", regardless of how strongly or poorly any specific case is supported by the evidence.

I feel sorry for people like you who set a poor example for your family and those you interact with. Whether you realize it or not your unbelieving attitude toward scripture and your unswerving support for theories of naturalistic evolution, biological and cosmological, is helping to lead people toward a path that may eventually destroy them. Let us hope that those whom you influence negatively toward scripture do not stray too far from it and thus place their salvation in danger.

I think you might know the person who is probably in most peril in this regard.

 

[jhodgeiii]

Jukia is correct

Jukia is correct

As it is increasingly clear that your failure to acknowledge such a thing as "generally accepted science" is your excuse to avoid looking critically at evidence.

Jukia is correct to point out that there is a such thing as "generally accepted science." He (or she) should also realize that there's a such thing as ad populum and how harmful to real science that can be.