Early earth question

[Helen]

1. If the earth's axis has NOT tilted then we have some very strange architecture of the ancients... but I know nothing is going to move your position, so I'm not going to argue with you. Once again, I prefer the actual evidence to your pronouncements.

2. The earth's place is in orbit around the sun. It has been maintained in that orbit at the proper distance for life. It will not be moved from its place until the Lord wraps up this creation. The fact that you are making the remarks you are making only shows me that you are not serious about this subject either, but only want to play some kind of word games.

3. Please note Romans 8:19-21 regarding creation. It is NOT in its original form, and its 'clues' must be understood that way. In addition, there ARE plenty of 'clues' indicating that the speed of light was faster in the past, as were all atomic processes, thus indicating that our dating is way off when we try to determine it via atomic means. So what you are getting stuck with is interpretation of the evidence done by evolutionists, not with the evidence itself. Divest yourself of interpretations, and take a fresh look at the actual data.

4. Regarding bombardment of the earth. The late heavy bombardment came shortly after the fall from what Barry has been able to determine. There were few people on the earth at that time. The earth has an atmosphere, which none of the other inner planets or moons have, and this would have acted as a partial shielding force. We have very little evidence of this bombardment because most of the impactors came from the outer part of the solar system -- the cometary material then was mostly icy and fragmented and thus disintegrated rapidly in our atmosphere for the most part. New Scientist had an article a few years ago about this. The title was "Neptune Strikes Again", or something like that.

5. Barry's theory needs no adjusting regarding the explosions of the hot waters. I am very sure now you have not read his material here:
http://www.setterfield.org/earlyhist.html
So please don't try to argue what you have not yet read. Thanks.

6. You are right you are not a geologist. Barry is.

7. I didn't call you or label you a humanist. I said you prefer humanist explanations, and you do.

[ May 14, 2003, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

[The Galatian]

2. The earth's place is in orbit around the sun. It has been maintained in that orbit at the proper distance for life. It will not be moved from its place until the Lord wraps up this creation.

Actually, the distance of the Earth to the sun varies from time to time. In a single year, it varies about 3 million miles, being closest to the Sun in January.

 

[Helen]

Yes, Galatian, I know.

 

[Meatros]

I just found this essay from Richard Dawkins, which sums up a travesity of the YEC 'science'.

Here it is: Sadly, an Honest Creationist.

Granted Dawkins is an atheist, I think he illustrates a problem facing creation science, by focusing on Kurt Wise:

Kurt Wise doesn’t need the challenge; he volunteers that, even if all the evidence in the universe flatly contradicted Scripture, and even if he had reached the point of admitting this to himself, he would still take his stand on Scripture and deny the evidence. This leaves me, as a scientist, speechless. I cannot imagine what it must be like to have a mind capable of such doublethink. It reminds me of Winston Smith in 1984 struggling to believe that two plus two equals five if Big Brother said so. But that was fiction and, anyway, Winston was tortured into submission. Kurt Wise—and presumably others like him who are less candid—has suffered no such physical coercion. But, as I hinted at the end of my previous column, I do wonder whether childhood indoctrination could wreak a sufficiently powerful brainwashing effect to account for this bizarre phenomenon.

 

[Helen]

Meatros, most of us have known about that for a long time. I also know that Dawkins is RABIDLY against religion and will stop at nothing to try to stamp it out. However, for kicks, here is a bit he wrote in the introduction to "Blind Watchmaker" which cracked me up:

This book is written in the conviction that our own existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries, but that it is a mystery no longer because it is solved. Darwin and Wallace solved it, though we shall continue to add footnotes to their solution for awhile yet. I wrote the book because I was surprised that so many people seemed not only unaware of the elegant and beautiful solution to this deepest of problems but, incredibly, in many cases actually unaware that there was a problem in the first place!

The problem is that of complex design. The computer on which I am writing these words has an information storage capacity of about 64 kilobytes…. The computer was consciously designed and deliberately manufactured. The brain with which you are understanding my words is an array of some ten million kiloneurones. Many of these billions of nerve cells have each more than a thousand ‘electric wires’ connecting them to other neurones. Moreover, at the molecular genetic level, every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer. The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesn’t agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up. No, on second thoughts I don’t give up, because one of my aims in the book is to convey something of the sheer wonder of biological complexity to those whose eyes have not been opened to it. But having built up the mystery, my other main aim is to remove it again by explaining the solution.

In other words, his system has absolutely nothing to do with observation, but with his commitment to his point of view despite what he sees and what logic says.

I know that the popularization of the YEC pov (Young Earth Creation point of view) is riddled with nonsense. It really is. I am sick and tired of hearing about the Paluxy footprints and the trilobite in the heel of a sandal and other things. But the fact remains that there is legitimate evidence for YEC and NO actual data for the long-ages, evolutionist pov which does not depend entirely on a previous commitment to evolution and the interpretation of the data in that light.

As far as Dawkins goes, I discredit most of what he says entirely as being ranting and raving (or terrible poetry!).

I have met Kurt Wise and talked to him and listened to him. He tends to bluster a bit, but in his approach to science is extraordinarily cautious. This is why he has said what he has about some things. He also trained under Gould and had a great deal of respect for the man. If Dawkins likes what Wise says, fine, but that has nothing to do with the legitimacy of real creation science.

 

[Meatros]

So are you saying that Dawkins committed libel when he qoutes Wise as saying:

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.

Personally I think Dawkins made a good point, no matter what you might think of the man, in summary:

Depending upon how many Kurt Wises are out there, it could mean that we are completely wasting our time arguing the case and presenting the evidence for evolution. We have it on the authority of a man who may well be creationism’s most highly qualified and most intelligent scientist that no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference.

If this is the case, then truly what is the case in arguing? (I'm actually thinking about opening another thread so if you want to answer that, please address it there).

 

[Helen]

No, Dawkins is not libeling. Please, please read what I actually said, OK?

And if you turn Dawkins' words in your second quote on himself and evolutionists, you will have a pretty good picture of what a lot of us are thinking about evolutionists. Facts make no difference at all to you folks. You are totally committed to your belief system.

And so I will use these forums to present to the others who are reading, knowing full well that the fact that two evolutionists that I know of have turned to creation after reading some of the materials presented was a downright miracle and not to be expected.

But presenting what I do has helped other Christians know they can trust the God of the Bible not only to tell them the truth, but they can trust Him fully with their entire lives, and that is the reason I am here. Genesis is true. God is true. Creation presents the truth of both.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Helen:

1. If the earth's axis has NOT tilted then we have some very strange architecture of the ancients... but I know nothing is going to move your position, so I'm not going to argue with you. Once again, I prefer the actual evidence to your pronouncements.

How much of your "evidence" refers merely to the well known precession of the equinoxes, which I have already acknowledged?

2. The earth's place is in orbit around the sun. It has been maintained in that orbit at the proper distance for life. It will not be moved from its place until the Lord wraps up this creation. The fact that you are making the remarks you are making only shows me that you are not serious about this subject either, but only want to play some kind of word games.

This is but another example of your ability to retain the right to reinterpret the literal meaning of scripture to your own choosing while denying that same right to others. Moving in a circle 186 million miles wide is not staying in one place! And there are other motions to account for, including the wobbling caused by the moon orbiting the earth, the whole solar system orbiting the galaxy, the whole galaxy moving in space towards something known only to God!

3. Please note Romans 8:19-21 regarding creation. It is NOT in its original form, and its 'clues' must be understood that way. In addition, there ARE plenty of 'clues' indicating that the speed of light was faster in the past, as were all atomic processes, thus indicating that our dating is way off when we try to determine it via atomic means. So what you are getting stuck with is interpretation of the evidence done by evolutionists, not with the evidence itself. Divest yourself of interpretations, and take a fresh look at the actual data.

Feel free to give a cogent reply to my objection in the thread about Setterfield theory. I'll promise to take a fresh look at that. As for Romans 18:20, it's perfectly feasible to consider Paul's words as applying to the situation on our planet only, at least as feasible as your reinterpretation above.

4. Regarding bombardment of the earth. The late heavy bombardment came shortly after the fall from what Barry has been able to determine. There were few people on the earth at that time. The earth has an atmosphere, which none of the other inner planets or moons have, and this would have acted as a partial shielding force. We have very little evidence of this bombardment because most of the impactors came from the outer part of the solar system -- the cometary material then was mostly icy and fragmented and thus disintegrated rapidly in our atmosphere for the most part. New Scientist had an article a few years ago about this. The title was "Neptune Strikes Again", or something like that.

The stark devestation revealed on the moon cannot be so lightly set aside. Your "New Scientist" article probably had nothing to do with the craters on the moon. Here's an interesting article on the Siberian 1908 impact:

http://www.psi.edu/projects/siberia/siberia.html

The protection give by earth's atmosphere is good only for the smaller objects. It remains obvious: if the devestation we see on the moon were to occur again in this neigborhood, we also would be devestated, even wiped out.

5. Barry's theory needs no adjusting regarding the explosions of the hot waters. I am very sure now you have not read his material here:
http://www.setterfield.org/earlyhist.html
So please don't try to argue what you have not yet read. Thanks.

I did read that, and found this to quote:

As the effects of the ice-age began to taper off, another global event assisted that process. This event changed the earth's axis tilt from more than 28 degrees, back to the present 23.5 degrees. This event, too, may have been an asteroid or comet impact, though other viable mechanisms have been discussed

Setterfield thinks we might survive an impact that was sufficiently energetic to cause the earth's axis to tilt 5 degrees. I remain astonished that this kind of statement is ever considered seriously by anyone.

6. You are right you are not a geologist. Barry is.

Barry made that incredible quote above. No one need say much more about his qualifications.

7. I didn't call you or label you a humanist. I said you prefer humanist explanations, and you do.

IF a humanist tells me 2 plus 2 is 4, I will agree with him regardless of the cost to my reputation in your eyes.

 

[Helen]

Paul of Eugene and others: thought this article might be of interest in light of this subject being discussed earlier on this thread:

Meteorites Rained On Earth After Massive Asteroid Breakup; Geologists Find Meteorites 100 Times More Common In Wake Of Ancient Asteroid Collision

HOUSTON -- MAY 8, 2003 -- Using fossil meteorites and ancient limestone unearthed throughout southern Sweden, marine geologists at Rice University have discovered that a colossal collision in the asteroid belt some 500 million years ago led to intense meteorite strikes over the Earth's surface.

The research, which appears in this week's issue of Science magazine, is based upon an analysis of fossil meteorites and limestone samples from five Swedish quarries located as much as 310 miles (500 km.) apart. The limestone formed from sea bottom sediments during a 2 million-year span about 480 million years ago, sealing the intact meteorites, as well as trace minerals from disintegrated meteorites, in a lithographic time capsule.

"What we are doing is astronomy, but instead of looking up at the stars, we are looking down into the Earth," said lead researcher Birger Schmitz, who conducted his analysis during his tenure as the Wiess Visiting Professor of Earth Science at Rice. Schmitz is professor of marine geology at Göteborg University in Sweden.

Meteorite activity on earth is relatively uniform today, with an average of about one meteorite per year falling every 7,700 square miles (12,500 sq. km.). The new study found a 100-fold increase in meteorite activity during the period when the limestone was forming, a level of activity that was present over the entire 150,000-square-mile (250,000 sq. km.) search area.

Some 20 percent of the meteorites landing on Earth today are remnants of a very large asteroid that planetary scientists refer to as the "L-chondrite parent body." This asteroid broke apart around 500 million years ago in what scientists believe is the largest collision that occurred in late solar system history.

Schmitz and his colleagues looked for unique extraterrestrial forms of the mineral chromite that are found only in meteorites from the L-chondrite breakup. They found that all the intact fossil meteorites in the Swedish limestone came from the breakup. Moreover, they found matching concentrations of silt and sand-sized grains of extraterrestrial chromite in limestone from all five quarries, indicating that meteorite activity following the breakup was occurring at the same rate over the entire area.

The research helps explain why Schmitz and his colleagues at Göteborg have been able to collect so many fossilized meteorites from a single quarry near Kinnekulle, Sweden over the past decade. Fossil meteorites embedded in stratified rock are extremely rare. Only 55 have ever been recovered, and Schmitz's group found 50 of those.

"It is true that we are lucky to be looking in just the right place -- a layer of lithified sediments that was forming on the sea floor immediately after this massive collision," said Schmitz. "But on the other hand, we would never have started looking there in the first place if the quarry workers hadn't been finding the meteorites on a regular, yet still rare, basis."

Until Schmitz's group started working with the quarry crew, the fossilized meteorites were discarded because they blemish the finished limestone. Schmitz believes it's possible that similar concentrations of fossilized meteorites and extraterrestrial chromite grains are present worldwide in limestone that formed during the period following the asteroid breakup. He recently got funding to look for evidence of this in China, and he said there are South American sites that are also favorable.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030509084929.htm

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Thanks Helen, for the interesting post.

I located the following description of the major extinctions in past earth history. The meteorites in your referenced article seem to come suspiciously close to the first of these major extinction periods!

First major extinction (c. 440 mya): Climate change (relatively severe and sudden global cooling) seems to have been at work at the first of these-the end-Ordovician mass extinction that caused such pronounced change in marine life (little or no life existed on land at that time). 25% of families lost (a family may consist of a few to thousands of species).

Second major extinction (c. 370 mya): The next such event, near the end of the Devonian Period, may or may not have been the result of global climate change. 19% of families lost.

Third major Extinction (c. 245 mya): Scenarios explaining what happened at the greatest mass extinction event of them all (so far, at least!) at the end of the Permian Period have been complex amalgams of climate change perhaps rooted in plate tectonics movements. Very recently, however, evidence suggests that a bolide impact similar to the end-Cretaceous event may have been the cause. 54% of families lost.

Fourth major extinction (c. 210 mya): The event at the end of the Triassic Period, shortly after dinosaurs and mammals had first evolved, also remains difficult to pin down in terms of precise causes. 23% of families lost.

Fifth major extinction (c. 65 mya): Most famous, perhaps, was the most recent of these events at the end-Cretaceous. It wiped out the remaining terrestrial dinosaurs and marine ammonites, as well as many other species across the phylogenetic spectrum, in all habitats sampled from the fossil record. Consensus has emerged in the past decade that this event was caused by one (possibly multiple) collisions between Earth and an extraterrestrial bolide (probably cometary). Some geologists, however, point to the great volcanic event that produced the Deccan traps of India as part of the chain of physical events that disrupted ecosystems so severely that many species on land and sea rapidly succumbed to extinction. 17% of families lost.


For those who want to check my reference, here's the site:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html

 

[Administrator2]

All posts not relating to the subject of the thread have been deleted. There was no other way to clean up this thread because several people posting refuse to accept PMs. Normally people would be privately contacted and asked to remove irrelevant subject matter from their responses. This is not possible when those contributing cannot be contacted.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

A geologist who is not a current member of this BB, Earl Detra, sent me the following information about "carbonate layers":

. . . First, I think Helen is confused between 'carbon-rich' and 'carbonate' layers. Usually, 'carbon-rich' would imply organic carbon in the sense of black to gray sediments containing organic carbon compounds or elemental carbon. Black shale would be an example, and it occurs in very thick sequences througout the geological record. Two and a half kilometers is not a surprising thickness. Carbonaceous sediments do not necessarily imply a flood, or a massive die-off of organisms. They are being deposited today in numerous places and, actually, it doesn't take much organic carbon to make a carbonaceous sediment. In fact, many sedimentary rocks would be considered carbonaceous if the organic components were not overwhelmed by siliciclastic material.

As to the actual carbonate rocks, I see that the mainstream articles Helen has referenced actually promote an old earth/evolutionary viewpoint. So we can see that there is a ready explanation of the sedimentary sequences seen in the Neoproterozoic. In this case, the thickest units are only up to 300 meters. This is not an unusual thickness for carbonates in the geological record. If we look at the Cretaceous Chalk, which might be a good analogy with the Proterozoic units, we have thick, widespread continental shelf deposits with limited terrigenous clastics and abundant planktonic life. Possibly these are very similar, though I am not particularly familiar with the older deposits. I see no reason to create a complex scenario of massive, worldwide floods and die-offs.