UTEOTW: Nope. Baumgardner's own work says that 10^28 joules of energy were released. You are making the mistake of equating two things that are not really equal. Those undersea vents may be hot but they do not put out much heat in the grand scheme of things.
Well, they are 400 degrees C, which is almost as hot as the lava the flows from Volcanoes such as Mt. St. Helen, for example. Such volcanic magma ranges from 500-700 degrees C. Volcanoes such as the Hawaiian Island's, on the other hand, range from that up to 1200 degrees C. In fact, the Hawaiian Islands are over plates and were formed by underwater volcanoes. These repeatedly arrupt and eventually built up enough land to emerge from the ocean. Here we have magma at 1200 degrees C underwater that didn't boil away the oceans. I would remind you that for dislocation creep to occur, you don't even have to reach the melting point of the basalt rock (approx 50% silica mix). All you have to do is get to about 80% of the melting temperature. I remind you that lava flows of 500 degrees are recorded by Mt. St. Helens - so 80% of that is 400 degrees. Hrm - those thermal vents are 400 degrees. Within mere feet of those vents you will find water that is 2 degrees Celcius.
UTEOTW: The mass of the earth's oceans is 1.35 * 10^21 kg. The latent heat of evaporization for water is 970 BTU / lb ....
I question your math, as applicable. For one thing, you have not accounted whatsoever for perhaps one of the MAIN variables - pressure. The increased pressure from being under tons and tons of water. Secondly, any time you add a solute you increase the boiling temperature. We are talking NOT ONLY about salt water, but an intesely agitated water mixing in tons of sand, rock, etc. Remember - in the creationist model this water not only came from rain, but it also came up from under the ground. Also, the Grand Canyon is great evidence of the ammount of displaced 'earth' mixing we see in the water. Clearly, this was a very pressurize and extremely mixed solution of water. Your calculations take none of this into account, yet both of these factors significantly increase the boiling point of water.
UTEOTW: This whole heat problem is a huge dificulty for a young earth. These things crop up repeatedly. Do the same thing for all the volcanoes and other igneous rocks of the world. There are a number of other such examples. The bulk heat is the easy thing to see. Look above. In one paragraph I can do a heat balance and show you just what the heat from one such example would do. The reader is free to think about repeating this over and over for all the other heat that instead of being released over 4.5 billion years is now released in a few thousand.
How long does it take granites and igneous rocks to form anyway? Well lets take a look at that question. Evolutionary scientists proclaim millions of years are needed. This obviously doesn't jive with the Biblical model of 6000 years.
from here
Previously, it had been assumed that cooling of plutons was only by way of conduction. So it is not surprising that calculations suggested millions of years were needed (Figure 1). That process can be likened to the cooling of a hot potato which is surrounded by a thick blanket. The heat from inside the potato takes a lot of time to work its way to the surface of the potato, and then to work its way through the blanket. Now suppose that we remove the blanket. The potato will cool more rapidly. Now let us slice the potato. Immediately, we see steam come out, and rise in a column. This indicates that not only is heat rapidly leaving the potato, but the heat transfer now is mostly by convection. It is the circulation of air near the potato which is largely responsible for its cooling. Of course, if we want to cool the potato still faster, we can pour ice-cold water into it after we slice it.
In many ways, the buried pluton is like that hot potato. If only conductive cooling is allowed, heat can only work its way out slowly from within the pluton, through the thick layers of rock enclosing it, and to the surface (Figure 1). Now consider what would happen if the thick layers of enclosing rocks became cracked. Water would naturally percolate through the rocks, and this would speed up the cooling of the pluton. The very heat supplied by the pluton would help drive the circulation of water, and hence the ‘carrying-away’ of the pluton’s own heat (Figure 1). Now let us take the analogy of the potato further. Permit not only the surrounding rock layers to crack, but also allow the pluton itself to crack as it cools. This makes it possible for ground water to percolate right into the hottest regions of the very interior of the ‘hot potato’ pluton.
How rapidly then does cooling occur? Based on mathematical cooling models, the time to cool a large pluton falls from several million years to only a few thousand, at most.12,13 ,14 The most recent models actually enable the cooling to be computer-simulated,15 ,16 but the timescale for cooling is still only hundreds to a few thousand years, depending on the sizes of plutons.14
Cracking and cooling
Is there evidence that ancient plutons have been largely cooled by convective water cooling? Definitely. The rock layers in contact with granites often contain chemicals which show that water has been greatly involved in cooling of the granites.17,18 Virtually all plutons are dissected by cracks of various sizes.14 In fact, it is next to impossible to locate uncracked granites! Many granitic bodies contain mineral-filled cracks, clearly proving that water has once flowed through them (the minerals crystallized out from a water solution). Furthermore, under special lighting, seemingly-intact granite samples show previously-filled channels between the major mineral components.19 Some granitic minerals, such as quartz, show evidence of having cooled under fluctuating temperatures. This is all consistent with rapid water-induced cooling, not slow-and-even cooling over millions of years.
You should also see -
The Rapid Formation of Granite Rocks - More Evidence
That link has some interesting viscosity information.
The question of crystals has also been moderately addressed by Tas Walker. There is evidence that they were produced rapidly. Also, the same dynamic conditions of the flood that may have kept water from boiling would also effect the formation of crystals - namely differences in pressure. See
Tas Walker's response to a similar question.
UTEOTW: But let the facts speak for themselves. You are avoiding these issues.
Facts do not speak for themselves, they must be interpreted in order for any conclusions to be made about what the facts mean. I choose to interpret based on God's infallible Word.
Also, I am not avoiding these issues. As you can see the creationist model has already provided evidence to the contrary.
UTEOTW: A young earth has enormous problems with reality no matter what kind of lens you look through.
Eventually you will come to see that this simply isn't true. You may regret not standing firm on God's unchanging, unfallible Word. Since He was the only one there at the beginning and creation of the universe, I tend to believe His account.
In that link to Tas Walker's response on granite crystals he says
"‘True knowledge begins with the Bible (Proverbs 1:7, Psalms 119:160; 138:2), and that is where we need to start.’
This is because we accept that the Bible is the Word of God. As the article says, ‘God was there when He created the world. He knows everything, does not tell lies, and does not make mistakes.’
The Bible teaches that the world is ‘young’: ‘If the Bible taught that the world was millions of years old, we would believe that. However, the concept of millions of years of death and suffering contradicts the Word of God, and destroys the foundation of the Gospel of Christ.’ "
This is so true. The Bible, in fact doesn't teach that the world is millions of years old - and NO INTERPRETATION can be construed to give that impression. Therefore, if we take the Bible to be true, we must, start with it was our framework.
UTEOTW: I used to wear YEC glasses. It was reading YEC material that convinced me they were wrong. The poor quality of their own arguments lead directly to me examining the rest of the story. Now, I grow more convinved of the ancient age of the earth with each exchange, with each new fact. I was driven from YEC by YEC.
You still have not answered my question from before - how do you try to fit millions of years into the Bible? It simply doesn't fit. The Bible already forms a complete picture. By you proclaiming to now believe in millions of years, you are basically saying "I choose to believe man over what God tells me is true". That is a very slippery slope, friend.
UTEOTW: You propose an amazing degree of segregation for all of life's history on earth that just happens to end now that we are watching.
No, I propose that just because we don't find something huddled togther with something else while it was dying from drowning, doesn't mean it wasn't contemporary with another creature.
UTEOTW: You still have much to explain...
I have touched on just about all those areas in a meaningful way.
retroviral LTRs - touched on that - mutation and loss of information consistent with the creationist model.
the shared vitamin C crippling mutation - didn't deal directly with it, but even the name of this item suggests it is consistent with a loss of information.
he nature of the fossil record including why we do not find past life mixed in a way consistent with everything having been alive together at the beginning - creationists believe that most of the fossils were formed during the year-long global Flood recorded in Genesis chapters 6-9. Thus creationists believe that the order in the fossil record is due to the order of burial during the Flood, and the local catastrophes that followed.
Many fossils and artifacts have been found ‘out of place.’ That is, they are in strata that the evolutionist says represent a period of time when, for example, that organism did not live, or human artifacts could not have been made. There are plenty of examples; some published in respectable journals before the evolutionary paradigm became locked in. Such examples do not get published in modern standard evolutionary journals, possibly because it is inconceivable that such could exist in the evolutionary worldview. In another context, Nobel Prize winner Sir Fred Hoyle said,
‘Science today is locked into paradigms. Every avenue is blocked by beliefs that are wrong, and if you try to get anything published by a journal today, you will run up against a paradigm, and the editors will turn it down.’
Forbidden Archeology, by Cremo and Thompson, lists some out-of-place human artifacts. They wrote the book from a westernized Hindu perspective to show that humans were present from antiquity, as required for the eons of multi-cycles of reincarnation of Hindu belief. (True Hindus are not concerned about such rationalizing, believing the physical world to be illusory.) Cremo and Thompson are not worried about the millions of years, just whether humans were there. They are ‘fellow-travelers’ with creationists only in the sense that we also believe that people were here almost all along, except we do not accept the billions of years. Cremo and Thompson have done a thorough job, with the final work being 914 pages long.
Visit this page for the rest of this information.
the tyoes of fossils we find including trace fossils; the evidence for a major impact at the KT boundary; Covered by the same article.
the details of mountain formation - This is generally caused by plate techtonic movment. I have touched on this quite a bit. Partly due to water run off of the contintents after the flood.
the linear relationship between age of the vocanoes of the Hawaiian chain and their distance from the active volcanic region and the consistent change in amounts of erosion with age. - I touched on this somewhat in this post. One reason for Hawaiian magma being so hot a easily flowing is it's relativity to plates. Clearly, it would be a very active place durng the flood.
consistent change in amounts of erosion with age. The measurment of seafloor spreading combined with indications that the rates are the same now as they were in the past, that rocks dated from different distances from the spreading agree with the expected age based on distance and rate of spreading - I could show many cases where errosion rates and 'spreading' rates are consistent with a young earth. These seem to all point to the conclusion that - rates haven't been constant. Your data would also verify this conclusion when framed properly with a YEC.
the magnetic field reversals chronicled in the rocks - it's not as shut and dry as you think.
See this article and also
this link for information on the striping pattern.
UTEOTW: Now here is your chance. Interpret those facts and show us that your interpretation fits the evidence, the facts in question, better than the explanation of modern science.
That is precisely what sites like
www.answersingenesis.org and
www.icr.org are attempting to do. They have a pretty daunting task, as there is a lot of work that has to be re-visited as it was interpreted incorrectly. YEC are often criticised for being 'reactionary' and not doing 'new' work. Well, we still have a ways to go to re-interpret all the data we already have! The workers are few and progresses slowly. However, as you can see, it is progressing. Right now it is in the early stages of 'we have an answer for just about everything'. It will soon transition to 'we can now decisively say...'. However, from all that I have read, just about every 'old earth evidence' can be seen to work under YEC theories. There is no bit of evolutionary evidence that can disprove creation. The Bible is true, and science proves that more and more every day.
