I mean if somebody is hook line and sinker stuck in cargo cult science. How do they ever free themselves? If they suppose that all the pieces fit together even if they had to glue the thing together with God and hope. How does one rend themselves away from such thinking?
Arguing with BaseSixForty on Youtube, it seems pretty intractable. Apparently the oceans level of salt needs to be overflowing with salt if the earth is old. But there's really only a finite amount of the stuff and it cycles around. The salt from the land typically was once salt from the ocean that was taken away by tectonic forces as salt today is taken away. And independently geologists have found that the level of salt in the ocean has been static. It has not changed.
Also the Earth Magnetic Field is getting exponentially weaker. Because Barnes at one point made that argument based on 200 years of data. Better readings have found that the field fluctuates all the time and often even reverses every 80k years or so. And that's bipole strength rather than overall field strength. So Barnes got swept aside. So then Humphreys comes along and says that the Earth Magnetic Field is getting exponentially weaker without even Barne's evidence of reading 200 years of data and extrapolating from that exponential decay (the line even better fits linear if you read the data and ignore that there's way more data now). Because such and such and such, but now with zero evidence rather than one point of horrible evidence.
It's rather sad. It's like somebody who knows astrology so well they can tell you calculate the meaning and signs other than your sun sign and figure out how things work. It's getting really really good at something really really foolish.
BaseSixForty: "The first is the issue of tectonic activity. You claim that this is the major player in removing salts from the ocean. You also accuse the studies shown of not taking this into account. However, you then provide no evidence and no data to back that up. ... Both are rather strong propositions to make without evidence or data. If you think it would be relevant, then provide the evidence to either support or refute the argument."
Tatarize: "The study excludes what geologists say is taking up the vast majority of salts. The problem here is the study says they've accounted for "all" the outputs. And that's just not true, or really even that possible. The fact that they missed what geologists have pointed to as the biggest player is a serious flaw. But, worse than that is the steady state of the salinity. It doesn't matter one jot what the magnitude of the various inputs and outputs might be if the overall effect is no change. Which was the more important point. Regardless of the actual values (See Pinet 1993 and various other estimates of the magnitude if you really care), the point obviously fails if geologists are right. For the last 100 million years the salt level in the ocean has been static, which I'll address shortly."
Unfortunately, you have once again simply made a claim, with no support. You claimed that tectonic activity is the major player in removing salts from the ocean. You claimed that this is what geologists have pointed to as the biggest player. However, you have provided no evidence, as I asked. You have made the claim, but have provided no support. If tectonic activity is responsible for removing vast amounts of salt from the oceans, then provide data. Provide measurements. Provide support. If there isn't any actual data, then provide evidence of the mechanism with approximations for why it should balance things out. Quite frankly, you can talk all you want about such a mechanism, but if it actually exists, then back it up. Don't just sit there and say it exists - show it exists. Honestly, for someone who seems to put such a huge weight upon the methods of science as supporting beliefs, I'm shocked at your double standard to refuse to provide any evidence for your claims but still cling to them as absolute fact.
BaseSixForty: "The second issue seems to be the issue of a steady state of salinity levels."
Tatarize: "http://www.clays.org/journal/archive/volume%208/8-1-203.pdf Paleosalinities is an actual bit of science. Goldschmit determined the relationships needed to directly calculate the salt levels in the ocean over time. They have remained steady. They have been steady and therefore cannot be used as a clock."
This is unfortunately circular reasoning again. All the Goldschmidt's paper really claims (as his conclusion at point number 5 shows) is that the paleosalinities of the sedimentary rock layers at the times they were laid down show no real change in salinity levels. I won't even dispute that. I'll grant you that just for the sake of your argument. Unfortunately, the conclusion uses the assumption that those rock layers are hundreds of millions of years old, and then extrapolates that to show that ocean salinity levels haven't changed over millions of years. But as mentioned, that's circular reasoning. Those sedimentary rock layers aren't actually hundreds of millions of years old - they are only a few thousand years old. As such, all Goldschmidt's data really shows is that the salinity of the ocean hasn't changed significantly in the last few thousand years - a perfectly acceptable conclusion for a creationist.
Tatarize: "However, there are other things that *CAN* be used as clocks, namely radiometric dating processes a dozen or so have determined the age of the Earth to be 4.55 billion years old. In fact, there are a lot of actual clocks we can use and they are all pretty consistent about the age of the Earth. "
Really? I find your definition of "consistent" quite interesting! How about these 70+ different geochronometers? (http://www.icr.org/article/young-earth/) Unfortunately, many evolutionists make the claim that you do here - all the geochronometers agree, and all state 4.5 billion years. But they never actually address any of the geochronometers that don't say that. They simple pick and choose whatever geochronometers give them the age of the earth that they like, and ignore the rest.
And even worse, effectively none of the evolutionists will admit that ALL of these geochronometers, whether showing a young earth or an old earth, are ALL based on fundamentally unprovable philosophical assumptions. They are based upon claims that we can know for certain the initial conditions, which we categorically can not know. They are based on claims that rates of change over time have been constant, which we categorically can not prove. But rarely ever will an evolutionist admit that.
And to go even further, some of these philosophical assumptions have been proven false for some of evolution's favourite dating methods. See (http://www.icr.org/article/2467/) for evidence that shows radioactive decay rates have categorically NOT remained constant throughout history. Or for secular evidence, see (http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html) for categorical proof that radioactive decay rates CAN be changed through outside effects. These studies fundamentally undercut the very foundation of the strongest known dating methods that conjecture an old earth.
BaseSixForty: "So as far as ocean salinity goes, all I see that you've given here is 2 hypothetical objections."
Tatarize: "Objections aren't hypothetical unless you're supposing somebody might object."
You clearly missed the meaning of the words. I deemed the objections "hypothetical" because the only 2 objections that you made were mere "hypotheses", not fact based or evidence based objections. You simply believed there was evidence against the reports I showed you, but you didn't actually provide such evidence.
BaseSixForty: "One is entirely unverifiable at this time (and likely to be so for tens, if not hundreds, of years into the future),"
Tatarize: "Except that we can actually and rightly infer the salt content of the oceans for the last couple billion years and have found it consistent for the last 100 million at least. With minor changes before that. Which is well enough to notice the effect. Most of the salts in the land are actually the product of this geological process and originally were from the ocean, by were recycled by tectonics. This is what the geologists tend to agree on. You could even check the Wikipedia page for "Seawater" and find this very simple set of facts. It hasn't changed over time. http://www.clays.org/journal/archive/volume%208/8-1-203.pdf Is worth posting again. It's an older paper but a great read. In fact, the more you read on paleosalinities the more you'll realize that such a field exists and it's simply false that we need to determine the salt content over time by induction based on bad studies that ignore most major factors.
Once again, you are assuming the very thing you are being asked to prove. You are assuming that the ocean is old, and then are showing that salinity levels haven't changed during a certain period of it's existence, and using that to "prove" that the ocean is old. Using the claim that you are attempting to prove as an assumption in your argument is circular reasoning. It's the fallacy of begging the question, and is fundamentally, logically invalid. You can't assume the ocean is old, and use that to prove the ocean is old.
And again, you claim that geologists agree that ocean salts are recycled through tectonics, yet you provide no data, no evidence, and no support. Until you do so, we have no reason to accept your belief that this is so.
As for your claims that is hasn't changed over time, once again, you are ignoring the fact that current measurements would not be able to detect the level of change proposed by the evidence of salt influx and removal. The level of change over the time period for which we have measurements would be well below the margin of error of those very measurements. Not only is the claim that the measurements we have over recent history are constant irrelevant, it has been shown to be irrelevant by the very papers in question. (http://tccsa.tc/articles/ocean_sodium.html) You have not addressed that claim, and have not even tried to refute it. Until you do, you can argue that the level of ocean salinity is constant all you want - you are just arguing an irrelevant point, which has been shown to be irrelevant.
Not only that, NASA appears to disagree with you. They believe that ocean salinity levels are changing - and believe it strong enough to spend significant finances to study the details (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-172)
BaseSixForty: "and the other is left unverified due to the lack of any evidence provided. So I'd simply have to say in response that the ocean salinity levels argument still stands."
Tatarize: "Your paper said it covered everything. It didn't cover what geologists say is responsible."
Then come up with some actual data, evidence, and support, instead of simply whining about it!
Tatarize: "And it's kicked down by the paleosalinities which show that the salt level in the oceans has not been rising over time."
Which does not show what you are wanting to make it show, unless you circularly assume the very thing you are trying to prove.
Tatarize: "Full Stop."
Honestly, if that's all you've got, you haven't even come close to beginning to counter the information that I've provided. You've done nothing to address the actual issues. You're argument didn't even get out of the starting gate - it fell flat on it's face before it could even begin. My previous claim remains valid - the ocean salinity levels argument still stands.
BaseSixForty: "First of all, I'm not using Barnes argument. The fact that you think I am appears to show that you are out of date on creationist science,"
Tatarize: "I wouldn't really call it science."
Smacks of a No True Scotsman logically fallacy coming on there.
BaseSixForty: "contrary to your claims. The basics of the details that I presented to you come from Dr Russ Humphreys, who although apparently beginning with with Barnes ideas, formulated completely different causes and effects for the magnetic field. So attempting to refute Barnes arguments is entirely irrelevant."
Tatarize: "It borrows the basic concept that Barnes came up with and re-adjusted them with a lot of random speculation and outright lies."
Prejudicial Conjecture - no real argument presented.
Tatarize: "The earth really is a dynamo."
You keep claiming this as fact, even though it is not even close to proven. It may be accepted by a certain portion of geologists, but that's only because it is a working theory that fit's into the philosophical assumptions of naturalism and the Big Bang. I don't blame them for accepting such a theory - if you choose to believe in such philosophical assumptions, then you have to come up with a theory that fits within that paradigm.
The problem is, the theory has a large magnitude of problems. Don't just take my word for it - take the word of the very credible geologists you claim to believe in. The National Geomagnetic Initiative, published by the US Geodynamics Committee and the National Research Council (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=2238&page=3) states:
"The mechanism for generating the geomagnetic field remains one of the central unsolved problems in geoscience."
Doesn't sound like a proven fact to me! In fact, it goes so far I'd say that dynamo theory is simply a theoretical model, hardly close to an accepted fact.
Tatarize: "You cannot magically explain reversing fields over time with supposing that the Earth's field went screwy during Noah's flood."
It's not "magically supposing", as you so desperately want to believe. It's using multiple evidences from science to postulate a hypothesis. These include the facts that the majority of sedimentary layers were laid down during Noah's flood, and the locations of various magnetic rocks within those layers that show magnetic reversals. It's actually pretty basic scientific deduction - but if you summarily dismiss all the different evidences based solely on your philosophical beliefs, then I can see why you would not be able to make such simple deductions.
Tatarize: "And it largely ignores the data about the strength of the field over time."
Actually, it does no such thing! I can't believe you would even make such a claim, since the strength of the field over time is the fundamental measurement of the study! This can clearly be seen from the original paper done about the study (http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html) as well as other articles on the issue (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v13/n4/magnetic) The data about the strength of the field was well studied, and well referenced, not ignored as you claim!
Tatarize: "It says things like "(also, archaeological measurements show that the field was 40% stronger in AD 1000 than today2)" -- This grossly ignores that before then it was largely gaining strength very rapidly, and before that losing strength and before that gaining strength."
The study in no way ignores these fluctuations as you claim - they are fundamentally included in the study, as can be seen from the raw data and charts included. You are once again confusing field reversals with field strength. Honestly, from a statement like this, I'm beginning to wonder if you even looked at the studies in question before trying to refute them. You seem to be arguing against things that you don't even understand, making claims about the data and evidence that are patently false, and easily provable as false by anyone who reads the studies in question!
Tatarize: "The only thing it does is take Barnes idea, and try to suppose something similar with absolutely no evidence. There's no evidence at all that the field strength is getting weaker exponentially"
Once again, the evidence provided in the study is pretty clear. To flat out deny it exists is really nothing short of willful blindness. If you want to disagree with the conclusions arrived at from the data, that's a point of interpretation that you might possibly be able to argue. But to ignore the actual data itself, and to claim it doesn't exists, goes beyond the comprehension of rational thought. From someone who seems to claim to be rational when considering evidence, you're conclusions here boggle the mind.
Tatarize: "or to gloss over sediments for the last few billion years,"
The study in no such way glosses over the sediments. It just doesn't accept the philosophical assumption of your billions of years claim. And why should it, since the majority of the evidence points to a young earth.
Tatarize: "or to suppose that it all happened during the flood for no particular reason at all."
It's not "for no particular reason at all". The reason this inference is made is because the evidence in the rock layers for these rapid reversals of the polarity of the magnetic field all happens to be in rock layers laid down during the flood. You keep building your objections based on YOUR philosophical assumptions of the past. But since the study is done without such assumptions, it is unhindered by your presuppositions. It is entirely consistent. The massive evidence for Noah's flood clearly gives overwhelmingly valid reasons to "suppose that it all happened during the flood". If you were ever able to take off your billions-of-years blinders, you'd see that the evidence all fits together naturally.
Tatarize: "There's rightly zero evidence for this hamfisted speculation. (Something I predicted)."
That's it - ignore the evidence, then you can claim it doesn't exist, and pat yourself on the back. Well Done!
Tatarize: "At least Barnes had some data, but it's taking some of Barnes data and making roughly the same claims for a slightly different subject without actually having any of his terrible evidence, because it no longer applies. And lying by taking trying to conflate the issue and giving more evidence that might support Barnes data, but it's no longer making that claim, because the claim is changed. It takes Barnes obviously wrong claims and builds on them to support a different claim that can't even be built from Barnes' wrong claims."
You keep coming back to Barnes. Once again, I can barely believe that you read Dr. Humphreys' paper on this issue, or any of the supporting work. Although inspired by Barnes' ideas, Humphreys began with an entirely different starting point - a propositional model of the creation of the Earth. He then used this to develop a model for planetary magnetism, and then see how that model fit the data. And what do you know - it fit the data conclusively.
BaseSixForty: "(While we are on the subject of keeping up to date, I would recommend avoiding TalkOrigins as a source - vast stretches of their articles are painfully out of date. Every time someone links me to an article on that site, I always find at the top "Text Last Updated ....." somewhere back in the 1990s. And that's to say nothing of the quality of the articles presented)"
Tatarize: "Creationist arguments don't change much over time."
The basic underlying facts of creationist arguments don't change, because the true history of the universe doesn't change! That is evidence of the STRENGTH of creationist arguments, not WEAKNESS! The only change over time is a better understanding of how things happened - which is the fundamental purpose of science, is it not? To understand the world we live in?
Tatarize: "In fact, most of them were better before they went shopping around for Velikovskyian explanations for things.
I smell another Straw Man argument coming on. You should really stick to the topics being discussed.
Tatarize: "You see, all these shifts in polarity in the very consistently strong magnetic field all happened during Noah's flood because I want them to. And returned to full strength again with Jesus because why not. And all happened at once. But, rapidly changing the polarity of the magnetic field would not polarize the sediments because it takes a really long time to turn them into rocks. Sorry but I have magical theories as to how rocks are formed that don't take as long and ignore the fact that we can find sediments that show that same pattern deep under ground (which doesn't have sedimentary rocks on top of it). Or look at volcanic rock that does the same damn thing."
Yup, I was right. Multiple Straw Men in there. Pathetic logical fallacies thinly veiled in a very poor attempt at sarcastic humour. No need to refute your multiple errors here - your comment is self-refuting through it's logical fallaciousness.
Tatarize: "Or was volcanic rock also laid down by Noah's flood?"
Yes, which you would know if you ever bothered to read the science you are trying to refute. It's a well known creation fact, completely supported by the bible by the way.
Tatarize: "The problem with creationist claims is they typically offer up absurd nonsense like top soil should be miles thick, sea water should be overflowing with water, the Moon would be inside Earth, the moon should have had unfathomably much moon dust."
More Straw Men. These aren't the topic's we are discussing here. Just because you aren't able to speak directly to the issues, that doesn't mean you can just start arguing against something that we aren't talking about here. You are trying to associate me with claims that I haven't made. Stick with the facts at hand, and try to deal with the issues actually under discussion.
Tatarize: "It really is basically of the claims that X is happening at rate Y, if we take (Y * Billions of years), and subtract that from X, we get an absurd value, therefore the Earth is young."
Well, that's pretty good inferential science. In fact, it's the exact same method that evolutionists try to use to prove that the earth is OLD! So to claim that it is an unscientific method for creationists, but is valid for evolutionists, is merely special pleading, another logical fallacy. You seem to be getting good at those.
But you still ignore the fact that, regardless of the presuppositions involved, the vast majority of such measurements point toward a YOUNG earth, not an OLD earth. Evolutionists just pick and choose whichever methods they want to suit their philosophical beliefs of naturalism.
Tatarize: "Therefore God."
Well, when the evidence clearly shows that the timeframe for the existence of the earth and the universe is clearly nowhere near long enough for evolution to even be possible, (let alone all the other evidences against it), then "Therefore God" is a pretty basic conclusion. Add this to the fact that the overwhelming evidence supports numerous aspects of biblical history (all humanity is descended from one woman, a catastrophic global flood in recent history, the appearance of multiple languages near simultaneously in the recent past, the birth of culture, agriculture, and animal domestication all in the recent past in the fertile crescent of the middle east, etc) and the conclusion of the truth of "Therefore God" is one of the easiest conclusions that rational people can come to.
Tatarize: "But such things almost always wrong, because the rates of things change and a lot of things have cycles."
Tell that to evolutionists who stand on the infallibility of the unchanging, non-cyclical nature of the dating methods they choose to use, despite evidence to the contrary, which I already showed above.
Tatarize: "And it's not hard to say that, oh the sun is getting more active and therefore if it continues at this rate it'll explode within a hundred years. But, these are utterly absurd."
Again, Straw Man fallacy. I have made no such claim (nor do I know any creationist who has, but I wouldn't agree with them if they did) Stop arguing against points that aren't being made here, and stick to the actual points of discussion (Since you seem to have forgotten, I'll remind you: Ocean Salinity Levels and The Earth's Decaying Magnetic Field)
Tatarize: "Almost every creationist argument fails due to these points. Chuck out all of science, and then plot one data point backwards until it looks absurd."
The fallacy of Hasty Generalization, followed up with another Straw Man fallacy. Two for One!
BaseSixForty: "Second, your rebuttals assume the dynamo theory for the magnetic field is correct. While an interesting hypothesis, it is known to have severe problems."
Tatarize: "No. It's actually the foremost understanding of the Earth's core."
Based on a philosophical assumption of naturalism. If you accept that philosophical assumption as true, then of course you would only come up with such an explanation. But personally, I think that limiting the search for truth to only a subset of possible explanations (which is precisely what naturalism does) is a terrible way to search for truth. If truth falls outside that specific subset, then you'll never find it, no matter how hard you try. And even worse, basing the search for truth on a philosophical assumption already proven to be vastly weak and bordering on absurdity (i.e., naturalism) is a terrible was to search for truth!
Tatarize: "And no. ICR simply stated something silly about the sea floor, which some theories might have used but don't need and bothered to check. Some theories included such elements, we checked to see if they worked. They didn't, so the theory advances and we know the currents need to be deeper in the mantle."
A whole lot of conjecture, about details which seem quite murky given the way you are talking about them, but once again, no facts, no data, and no support.
Tatarize: "That dynamos work is simply a product of physics. And the more we look the more clear it becomes that's Earth has all the needed bits for a dynamo. Solid metal core and flowing conductors. Up until about last year we figured the Earth's mantle needed to have some kind of conductor and recently found it. The theory is actively predicting things that active investigations are determining as completely accurate. "
This is absurd. If you want to talk about theories that actively predict various findings, Humphreys' theory blows the dynamo theory out of the water! Humphreys' theory provides a simpler explanation of Earth's magnetic field than the dynamo theory. By quite a lot! Once again, go and actually read Humphreys' theory, so you can understand what we are talking about here: (http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html)
In addition, Humphreys' model explains the magnetism of the Sun, including field reversals which are accurately measured today, whereby the dynamo theory has significant problems with this.
In addition, Humphreys' model explains the previous magnetism of the moon, and why it no longer exists. The dynamo theory can't. Various factions of evolutionary scientists have come up with MULTIPLE reasons why a lunar dynamo is an impossible answer. (http://creation.com/moons-magnetic-puzzle)
In addition, Humphreys' model accurately predicted the magnetic field of Mercury, while dynamo theories said that it shouldn't even have a magnetic field!
In addition, Humphreys' model accurately predicted the lack of a magnetic field on Mars.
In addition, Humphreys' model went head to head against dynamo models in predicting the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune, years before we could even make such measurements. When the measurements were made, Humphreys' model was near exact, while the dynamo predictions were off by factors of 100,000!
The dynamo theory can't even begin to explain or predict anything other than Earth - it missed on every single planet in the solar system, along with many different moons in the solar system (ours, Ganymede, Europa, etc)
In addition, Humphreys' has extended his model recently to consider the issue of galactic magnetic fields. Here is where a dynamo theory can't even begin to offer an explanation, since such a theory can't even work on a galactic scale. Yet Humphreys' has had very good initial results to his predictions.
Dynamo theorists even acknowledge that their theories are incomplete, very complex, and not very successful at making predictions (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v319/n6050/pdf/319174a0.pdf)
One, named F. Bagenal, even admitted '...you would have thought we would have given up guessing about planetary magnetic fields after being wrong at nearly every planet in the solar system...' ("The Emptiest Magnetosphere." Physics World, October 1989)
Not only that, Humphreys' model also predicted rapid reversals would be found in thin, fast-cooling lava flow layers. (http://creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-and-the-age-of-the-earth) After making such predictions, evidence was subsequently found to verify this prediction (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v374/n6524/pdf/374687a0.pdf) and then even more evidence found again at a later time (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0012821X89900538) The Humphreys model just keeps getting things right, time and time again, in multiple testable areas of prediction.
So if you are going to bring up the issue of a theory being able to make good, testable predictions, Humphreys' model has destroyed the track-record of the dynamo theory time, and time, and time again! And the top dynamo theorists know this, and freely admit it!
BaseSixForty: "There is no real accepted working model for it that explains the earth's magnetic field."
Tatarize: "Yes. There are. In fact there's an actual physical working model. We've built little models of the Earth core to awesome degrees. And we know how dynamos work and have all the elements for one in Earth. In fact, we should be shocked to not have one since the physics say one should exist."
Let's see it. Don't just claim it, back up your claim.
BaseSixForty: "It is held on to these days more for philosophical reasons than for scientific explanatory scope - people want the results that it gives to be true."
Tatarize: "No. It's held up because it explains all the given data. And rightly makes predictions about what we should find."
Again, all I can do is point you back to the scientific studies already done which clearly show you are wrong. Dynamo theorists have consistently gotten things wrong with their predictions, ultimately realizing that they need to stop making predictions, otherwise they will just look sillier than they already do when they are wrong again.
Tatarize: "We know that for such things to properly work the mantle should conduct electricity. But, nothing in the mantle seems to conduct electricity, except something needs to. Oh, wait, there it is: http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.5068 Iron monoxide conducts but only at the temperature we'd find in the Earth's mantle."
The article you linked to is not complete - I can simply access the abstract. If you have the full version, I would be happy to review it. As for now, I can only comment on what the abstract appears to claim. And to be honest, I find it neither surprising nor convincing. Of course the mantle would need some type of material to conduct magnetism. They way you present it here, it does nothing to support your claim - it simply confirms that a magnetic field may be possible. Is says nothing about the initial source of such field.
Again, if you can provide the full text of the article, I'd be happy to review the whole thing.
Tatarize: "So to explain an odd bit. We need something to be true and we're not sure what, and then we find it, because the theory actually provides a scientific explanatory scope. It allows us to make accurate predictions of things we hadn't found yet."
And yet this prediction is not exclusive to the dynamo model. Predicting that some type of conductor would exist is almost irrelevant - it would have to exist necessarily, regardless of which model of the source of the magnetism is correct. This seems only to speak to the medium of the field, not the source. And again, the dynamo theory has fallen so disgracefully short in so many other predictions, such a small prediction like this can't even begin to resurrect it.
BaseSixForty: "Contrast that with the model that Dr Humphreys has put forward, which not only explains the magnetic field of the earth, but that of the Sun also, including it's known magnetic field reversals."
Tatarize: "With Noah's flood and magical rock formation,"
Not magical rock formation - Flood based rock formation, which is well studied, and well known. When you call it magical, all you do is show your biased ignorance of the facts here.
Tatarize: "and no explanation for the same observations in lava rocks,"
On the contrary, such explanation exists, and provides accurate predictions, as I have already shown.
Tatarize: "and restoring the magnetic field with Jesus. It doesn't explain anything. I could make up a more consistent theory that involves aliens."
Please feel free to try. And ensure you make accurate predictions like Humphreys has, multiple times, about multiple planets and moons. I await your theory and what testable predictions you feel to make.
Tatarize: "You want to say oh, dynamos still have some open questions that are only being answered with real science, this guy has magic, Jesus. He says the Earth's core as decaying without any evidence that it is decaying and then proposing that it already decayed and was restored by Jesus. He says it's going down at a consistent rate, but draws a hugely inconsistent line. And needs pretty much every rock on Earth to have been formed during Noah's flood and the core of the Earth to be somehow caused to go into magical flux. Or to propose there's more exceptions to the to why the Earth's fluxing field pretty much make rocks flip around all the time. -- Really! REALLY!"
Such a serious misrepresentation of the actual facts of Dr. Humphreys' model. It's sad, really. When faced with the true strength of the theory, you can do nothing but attempt to ridicule a false version of it. All you do with statements like this is show that you really have no good reason to reject it, other than you don't like the conclusion. That's fine - if you don't want to admit that the evidence points to a young earth, go right ahead. But don't kid yourself into believing that you are rejecting it on any scientific or rational grounds - you've clearly shown you aren't. You simply reject it because you don't like where it leads.
BaseSixForty: "The dynamo model fails completely on that issue. And that's really the power of good science, isn't it? The ability for a theory to expand explanatory power and scope? Here, the dynamo theory is weak, and Dr Humphreys' model is strong."
Tatarize: "Oh my goodness. Really? One theory supposes things that we keep finding actually exist, and explains all the data and supported by the whole of geology. And the latter model attributes it to magic, with no evidence at all. Well, not really know evidence there's Barnes evidence but that's oddly not really suppose to be the claim and is hugely wrong when we consider that we actually have proper data."
Unfortunately, you clearly have this backwards. Humphreys theory is the one that supposes things we keep finding actually exists, while the dynamo model has very little evidence. This has clearly be shown above. Humphreys' model has made numerous predictions. The dynamo model has gotten effectively every single prediction wrong, as admitted by multiple dynamo theorists that I showed above. For you to make such a backward claim as you have here, I can only assume you have your fingers stuck in your ears, your eyes screwed tightly shut, and keep repeating "Na na na na na na, I can't hear you, na na na na na na, I can't hear you"
Tatarize: "You do not solve the mystery of missing socks by involving elves. The mystery of the elves is necessarily greater than the mystery of the missing socks."
This is quote possibly the worst analogy I've seen in months. Humphreys has done nothing but postulate a scientific idea, and used standard scientific modelling to substantiate it. He's provided a testable, falsifiable theory, and it keeps passing test after test, and has yet to be falsified in even the slightest way. Your elf claim here is simply desperation - you're so far gone with no evidence to back you up, you have to resort to the fallacy of false analogy, and thinly veiled ad hominem attacks.
Tatarize: "The idea that you can just ad hoc an entire worldview of a decaying core, to explain bad data that doesn't actually say that, and use that to say the field is decaying, and use that to say it's decaying too fast to be have the world be old, and lets ignore that it starting flipping around during the time of Noah magically and was restored by the power of Jesus! Yes, how very sciency!"
Once again, not a single attempt at scientific rebuttal in there. All you've done here is once again show that, instead of dealing with the reality of the science, you will just ridicule it. You clearly don't like the conclusion that this model leads to, and so you will make fun of it until it goes away. Honestly, I can say nothing about that, other than the fact that I find it pathetic.
BaseSixForty: "Third, your rebuttals assume an old age of the earth already."
Tatarize: "No, it uses the giant pile of evidence to establish that."
First, there is an even larger giant pile of evidence that does not establish your long ages. And second, when discussing the viability of a dating method, it IS circular reasoning to simply say that a different dating method contradicts it. By saying that you "use the giant pile of evidence to establish" an old age of the earth, what you are saying is that, instead of arguing against the facts of the method being discussed, you ignore it's conclusions and dismiss it due to outside influences. That is the very definition of circular reasoning - assuming what you are trying to prove. Instead of appealing to outside sources, how about you actually discuss the merits of this dating method here. I could easily sit back and claim that magnetic field dating is right because it matches up with helium diffusion rates, or supernova remnants. But I'm not doing that - I'm dealing with the subject at hand. How about you deal with it too?
Tatarize: "Regardless of these silly arguments we can and do accurately date things through very robust dating methods."
And yet, they aren't anywhere near as robust as you think. Radiometric dating gives false dates all the time, such as recent lava flows dating as hundred of thousands or millions of years old (http://creation.com/excess-argon-within-mineral-concentrates-from-the-new-dacite-lava-dome-at-mount-st-helens-volcano), or top layer rock layers dating as older than lower layer rock layers.(http://creation.com/more-and-more-wrong-dates-radio-dating-in-rubble)
Tatarize: "It wouldn't matter if we didn't know how the sun could burn for 4 billion years like Lord Kelvin said it couldn't because it would burn out far too quickly. It seemed deeply mysterious at the time and meant the Earth could be at most 50k years old. But, geology at that time was still giving good ages in the hundreds of millions of years."
This point is entirely irrelevant, but I'll address it only because it is clearly wrong, and verifiably wrong. Kelvin's work on the age of the Sun, and hence the earth, was conducted while the ideas of millions of years were pure speculation! His initial estimates came in the 1860s. This was done during the early years of acceptance of uniformitarianism, and long before any actual geological dating method was "giving good ages in the hundreds of millions of years" as you claim. At that point in time, millions of years was still a flat out assumption, with no evidence at all. It was a philosophical belief system entirely (which it remains as almost to this day). The concept of radiometric dating didn't come into existence until the early 1900s. So it's clear your claim is false - anyone who wants to can go and verify this.
Tatarize: "Even before that was solved (the sun is nuclear not chemically burning), it would have still been perfectly fine to note all the good evidence for the age of the Earth. -- And this was when the arguments were especially weak. Given all the benefits of modern science it would matter even less as it would be weighted against the bulk of significantly more science."
Once again, this comment clearly shows that you only want to accept science built upon your philosophical assumptions. The majority of the evidence actually points to a young earth, not an old earth - but if you want to stick to your philosophy, and interpret science only within that construct, then you are welcome to do so. But don't pretend that your philosophical assumptions don't affect your view of the scientific data.
BaseSixForty: "When you impose external dating methods to calibrate the last field shift at 780,000 years ago, then of course you are going to be able to show old ages for polarity reversals."
Tatarize: "The dating methods aren't being imposed. That's where the evidence is. We can determine the strength of the magnetic field and when that strength existed."
And that's exactly what I said. The evidence of the magnetic field is in the rocks. You are imposing your external dating system for the rocks onto the magnetic field therein. This is once again circular reasoning. "The rocks can't be young because they are old". That's not even close to a rational scientific conclusion. It's pure logical fallacy at it's best.
BaseSixForty: "You've calibrated them to do just that!"
Tatarize: "I didn't calibrate them. We typically use physics and several dozen different methods to determine such things."
I apologize - this comment may have been misconstrued to mean that I think you yourself did the calibration. Clearly, I know that is not the case. However, you have accepted an external calibration, as I mentioned above. And once again, as I have already proven, the different methods you claim don't give anything close to the consistent age you would wish for.
BaseSixForty: "And it's even worse when the external calibration is done by a dating method with known flaws."
Tatarize: "A variety of dating methods all of which properly confirm the known dates and collaborate the data."
As mentioned, that's just not the case. The dating methods do not usually agree - and they often disagree by significant factors well outside any reasonable possible error factor.
BaseSixForty: "This suffers from a form of circular reasoning."
Tatarize: "No. This suffers from science. Where one strongly evidenced bit of data feeds into and supports another until we can build an entirely consistent lattice of ideas that is strongly backed by the evidence across all fields. Should I not be allowed radiometric dating because it relies on nuclear physics which relies on relativity? Should I not be allowed to determine the age of trees because counting tree rings relies on math? Can I look at the back of the Moon and say, gee that's a hell of a lot of giant asteroid impacts, more than could happen in 10,000 years unless Earth is being nearly destroyed every five years? It involves rocketry and photography, and statistics. Some rocketry involves statistics too, isn't that circular?"
You paint a rosy picture of everything agreeing. Unfortunately, it doesn't. And this fact is well known. I've already provided enough evidence to show why these dating methods are flawed. And I can easily show other dating methods which all agree with a young earth, and build up an even more consistent lattice of ideas backed by the evidence across all fields. But this is just getting off topic again. If you'd like to open up another topic considering other dating methods, we can consider that. But for now, how about you address the issues here.
BaseSixForty: "Fourth, your analogy of temperature decreases at dusk commits the logical fallacy of the false analogy in the highest order."
Tatarize: "False analogies require the analogies to be false. Many of these arguments really do do exactly that. "
But your analogy IS false, for the exact reasons that I clearly stated. You didn't even attempt to refute that.
Tatarize: "Suppose since something is at some rate it must always have been. That's what Barnes did. And Humphreys is entirely based on those same claims, that the field is dropping exponentially! Except that it's not and the data says it's just on a downshift today."
But once again, you are wrong. You are making statements about the data that just aren't correct. I'm not sure what more to tell you than to go back and look at the actual data. The data points were all clearly measured, and are available through publicly available literature, which is well referenced. The extrapolation is done through well tested, widely used, verifiable scientific statistical modelling. If you want to attack it, go ahead. But don't just sit there and whine that you don't like it. Try actually putting some effort into refuting it - if you can.
Tatarize: "On the 16th the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 20 points. 13232.62 -20.14 (-0.15%) My goodness the stock market is doomed, it must only have 661 days left! When Obama took office it must have been ~46,600! "
Once again, all you've done here is commit another logical fallacy of false analogy. Humphreys' data contains significantly more data points than "one". And you know this. To make this comparison, you are being completely dishonest in your representation. You can't hide behind any claim of reasonableness here - you are clearly being dishonest, and you really have no recourse on this one but to admit you've overstepped the bounds of rationality and withdraw your analogy.
BaseSixForty: "Why would you take a known, set-period, set-amplitude cyclical event (the earth's rotation) and compare it to a cyclical event that is known to have varying amplitude and period (the earth's magnetic field)?"
Tatarize: "But, you're saying it's not fluctuating. It's just dropping like a rock. That's the central basis for the whole argument. There's no evidence for it, but that's what it's saying. And it's proposing mechanisms for this drop that there's no evidence for. And using this mechanism and drop to conclude that since it's dropping the earth can't be old."
And again, you are simply confusing field strength and field polarity. You keep mixing these terms, and as such are trying to refute an argument that neither I, nor Dr Humphreys, are making.
BaseSixForty: "Why is it okay to do this for radiometric dating,"
Tatarize: "Because physics doesn't change. There's no metric by which Uranium can decay faster or slower in the Precambrian than in the Cambrian. In fact, we know why radioactive decay happens and it's not going to change."
Once again, I point you to only 2 of multiple evidences that prove you wrong: Polonium radio halos prove non-constant radioactive decay rates in the distant past (http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/imp/imp-386.pdf) and unknown particles from solar flares alter radioactive decay rates (http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html) Definitive proof that shows you are wrong. Radioactive decay rates have changed in the past, and we have verifiable experimental evidence that we have seen them change in the present day.
BaseSixForty: "even though it has known drastic flaws,"
Tatarize: "You say that, but you're wrong. It has some minor issues for some specific forms of dating."
Finding 30 year old lava to be hundreds of thousands or millions of years old is NOT a minor issue (http://creation.com/excess-argon-within-mineral-concentrates-from-the-new-dacite-lava-dome-at-mount-st-helens-volcano)
Finding a rock layer that is supposedly hundreds of thousands of years younger than a rock layer above it is NOT a minor issue (http://creation.com/more-and-more-wrong-dates-radio-dating-in-rubble)
Finding a 45 thousand year old forest that was burnt by a 45 million year old lava flow is NOT a minor issue (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v20/n1/dating)
Finding 36 thousand year old wood in 20 million year old rock layers is NOT a minor issue (http://creation.com/dating-in-conflict)
Finding carbon-14 of any amount in diamonds that are supposedly billions of years old is NOT a minor issue (http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf)
You can't just do some hand-waving here and claim these are minor issues. And these are but a handful of the HUGE problems with radiometric dating. There are plenty more where these came from.
Tatarize: "This is why we use a great many different clocks to verify such things. And interestingly they all tend to come up with the same value but there's no reason (other than it's validity) that that should be true. Half a dozen different clocks come up with the same value for the same samples."
But this just isn't true. The methods don't come up with the same answer, as I've previously shown. And even further, experts in radiometric dating know this! When labs accept samples for testing, the first thing that the ask is "how old do you think the sample is" so they can then choose the dating method to use which might give an answer in the range expected! Not only that, it's commonly known that, if a radiometric date confirms an estimated date obtained from fossils in the nearby rock layers, then it is used. But if the radiometric date does not confirm the date expected from fossil evidence, then it is simply thrown out as anomalous for some reason (contamination is the easiest solution, but other reasons are often given also.)
So despite your claim, the multiple dating methods do NOT come up with the same value on anything close to a consistent basis.
BaseSixForty: "but it's wrong in so many other places? This has always seemed like one of the biggest double standards in science to me."
Tatarize: "If you can give compelling reasons why it should change over time, or for concluding that it has changed over time. Then you have a reasonable case."
I'm glad you admit that, since I have provided verifiable evidence of this above. From both creationist and secular sources. So I guess we can then agree to set radiometric dating aside, as it is fallible.
Tatarize: "But, when the claims are things like we should have miles of top soil, or because the moon is moving away at 2 inches a year, it can't be a couple billion years old. But, we know that the rates have changed and can explain why they should change."
Once again, Straw Man arguments against points which I have not made.
Tatarize: "It really depends on the evidence. It's not a double standard, it's a standard. You need evidence. You must say why something should be the case or not the case."
Creationists do - as I have shown here. But when the evidence comes from a creationist, you seem to summarily dismiss it just for that reason alone.
Tatarize: "When Hubble figured out that all the galaxies are flying apart we worked it backwards and realized there must have been a Big Bang. But, we wanted to figure out how fast they were going to see whether the universe would eventually crush back on itself or fling apart forever. But, we thought this should be the case because of inertia. So Saul Perlmutter figured out a really amazing way to calculate how fast the expansion was slowing down should be using standard candles of a specific type of supernova to check the value. Ran the numbers and determined it was negative, and thus was speeding up. (For which he won a Nobel Prize last year.) "
Amazing, truly staggering. And yet, all that proves is that the universe is expanding, and accelerating. That's all the evidence provides for. Extrapolating backwards to get the Big Bang only happens if you accept certain philosophical assumptions - naturalism, materialism, etc. Not to mention the scientific assumptions that the Big Bang is built upon (the universe is effectively homogeneous everywhere, it has no centre and no edge, etc) which are completely unverifiable. If you accept those assumptions, then the Big Bang is a decent theory. But if you don't accept them (and there are significant, compelling reasons not to) then the Big Bang falls apart.
BaseSixForty: "It always seems like evolutionists pick and choose when something supports their arguments vs when something goes against them.)"
Tatarize: "No. There needs to be some kind of reason there. Why should the levels of salt in the ocean be consistently rising. Well, okay, that argument works. The water goes away in the water cycle by none of the salt leaves during evaporation. We have good reasons to suppose that this might be accurate. Now what does the data say? Well it says the levels of salt have been the same."
Except for the fact that the data doesn't actually say that. As mentioned, the only way you get that is either through Goldshmidt's data, which circularly assumes the very thing you are trying to prove, or through direct measurement, which has been statistically proven to not be able to measure the actual change that would exist to a degree of precision outside the margin of error of the measurement, therefore making the measurement irrelevant.
Tatarize: "Why? Well tectonic forces recycle the land masses and end up removing salt."
Again, you have conjectured this with no supporting data or evidence, or even an argument for a viable method that could be tested.
Tatarize: "But by what mechanism could the earth have infinite amounts of salt, if it's not allowed to recycle it? We need each bit to be consistent with *all* the other bits. It's not that the evidence and arguments are selected because we don't like you, but because it needs to be completely consistent with the whole of science. And while you can make things up to fix some bits, you end up causing problems somewhere else in science."
Once again, you have this backwards. Creation science is the system that is completely consistent, explaining every piece in concert with every other piece. Evolutionary science is the system which is fractured, and which consistently causes problems with other areas of science.
BaseSixForty: "So ultimately, your entire attempt at rebuttal on the magnetic field issue fails for the same reason most evolutionary arguments fail"
Tatarize: "Because you don't believe it?"
No - for the exact reasons that I clearly spell out in the very next sentence.
BaseSixForty: "(whether biological, geological, or cosmological): they are built on faulty assumptions. Here, you've built upon one assumption which is known to be fatally flawed (external dating)"
Tatarize: "That's more science. Sure, if you're going to undercut such science"
And this gets down to the heart of the issue, which unfortunately, I'm not sure you can accept. I'm not undercutting such science. No creationist is. We are undercutting the philosophical belief systems upon which such science is built. If you believe in naturalism, materialism, empiricism, then you really have no choice but to force discordant data into the explanatory framework which you have done. You've left yourself with no other option. And that's the fundamental issue. It's not a question of science vs religion, it's a question of the science of naturalism, materialism, empiricism vs the science of creation. And quite frankly, naturalism, materialism, empiricism have way too many flaws to built a coherent view of the universe.
Tatarize: "you could go ahead and say dinosaur fossils are from the time when Egyptians were brewing beer. That the Assyrians looked in awe at God creating the universe 6000 years ago."
which is similar to the claims you end up with when approaching the science without the presuppositions of naturalism, materialism, empiricism.
Tatarize: "Because if you're going to throw out physics"
But no one is throwing out physics - just the philosophical assumptions through which the conclusions of physics are then interpreted.
Tatarize: "and all the ways we know the dates for things (as well as a variety of other valid but ultimately less accurate methods, they give dates like older than 2.3 billion years) you could well suppose that all the methods are wrong."
Again, which is where you end up when you abandon the less than rational claims of naturalism, materialism, and empiricism.
Tatarize: "Sure, we can measure the redshift of distant galaxies but that assumes that that light is from those galaxies and not invented by God en route. Sure we can independently determine those distances by understanding the physics of stars and using standard candles like supernovas or binary stars of set types. But, that's built on gravity science and solar science. And sure we can use those standard candles to say the Andromeda Galaxy is 2.5 million light years away and that the light has traveled for 2.5 million years, but that's based on physics, the speed of light and understandings of gravity, and assumes these don't magically change when the data doesn't support your desired theory."
Very interesting, but again, built upon philosophical assumptions. I'd suggest you read up on the concept of gravitational time dilation. Perhaps Dr John Hartnett's "Starlight, Time and the New Physics", or his "Dismantling the Big Bang". Ridiculously simple explanations of how we can see distant starlight in a young universe, based entirely on Einstein's Theory of Relativity and Dr Moshe Carmeli's 5 dimensional space-time-velocity model of the universe. Not only that, but Hartnett's model explains the cosmos and accelerating expansion without the need for hypothetical, unobserved phenomena like dark matter or inflation. It's quite fascinating really.
BaseSixForty: "and another which has little evidential support and better competing models acting against it (the dynamo theory)."
Tatarize: "It has a great deal of evidence for it. As well as a vivid understanding of how dynamos work and what are needed for one to work, and that the Earth actually has all of those elements. And yes, all the evidence geology provides for the magnetic field on Earth over countless eons. This is using one thing to show another thing, but it's built on the backs of significant amounts of evidence and that's how science works."
Except that Humphreys' model does all this way better, with a simpler theory, with wider explanatory scope, with stronger explanatory power, and with an unbeatable track record of correct predictions. THAT'S how science works, my friend.
(Note: This comment is from a follow up note you sent me. I include it here, simply because it relates to the discussion of magnetic field decay, and your currently comments tend to end here on that subject, before moving off to more general topics)
Tatarize: "Also, this (from 2010) is pretty good on the subject. Perhaps better written than my musings on the rather clear flaws. http://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/stan-3/"
This link contains effectively no information of it's own - it does however link to much of an attempted rebuttal by Dr Joe Meert. This has three main flaws. First, Meert has never actually published his ideas anywhere other than internet websites (and highly unofficial ones at that: http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/magfield.htm). Dr Humphreys on the other hand has published his theories in peer-reviewed scientific journals, presented them at professional conferences, and written numerous followup articles for similar publications.
Second, Meert seems to have a continuing dislike for Humphreys on a level that goes beyond the actual science. It can be seen through his desire to attack Humphreys on any issue which Humphreys publishes on. (http://www.trueorigin.org/meert_01.asp and http://creation.com/russ-humphreys-refutes-joe-meerts-false-claims-about-helium-diffusion)
Third, despite the unwarranted attacks, and unprofessional, unpublished attempts at refutation, Humphreys has still taken the time to fully rebut Meert on every point that he has brought up. It always follows a simple pattern: Humphreys publishes a theory, Meert throws out a few half-hearted attempts at identifying problems, Humphreys refutes them all, but Meert (and all the atheist websites which follow him) keeps pointing back to the same original criticisms, even after Humphreys has debunked them. It's sad really, but people keep on referring back to information that has already been addressed and handled (this is one of the main faults of that TalkOrigins site I warned you about earlier - nothing but first level issues, most of which have been suitably handled.)
Tatarize: "A fact never went into partnership with a miracle. Truth scorns the assistance of wonders. A fact will fit every other fact in the universe, and that is how you can tell whether it is or is not a fact. A lie will not fit anything except another lie." Robert Green Ingersoll"
I agree! Which is why I can't believe in evolution, or the Big Bang, or deep geologic time! They are simply vastly inconsistent with so much of what we know. They depend upon ridiculous miracles with no possible way of them ever occurring (naturalism, by definition, disallows miracles of any kind). The Big Bang itself would be a miracle. Abiogenesis would be a miracle. Numerous elements from geology would be miracles, like the previously mentioned discordant radiometric dates, or things like polystrate fossils. Biological evolution would be nothing but miracle after miracle, all with no method for their occurrence. So I agree, the facts that point to creation and a young earth could never go into partnership with the miracles required for evolution and naturalism.
BaseSixForty: "If you want to hold on to those assumptions, that's fine - you can keep your theories the way they are and believe what you want about the issue."
Tatarize: "I don't believe such things because I want to believe them, I believe them because they are overwhelmingly evidenced and pass every test we ever offer for them."
And once again, I can only say, if you want to believe that, you are welcome to do so.
Tatarize: "When creationist theories are tested, the data is annulled by magical new claims. It's like playing Calvin Ball."
No - the data fits clearly within the creationist framework that has been effectively consistent for the past 6000 years. It's amazing how consistent it's been, and still getting things right. But then again, when there was an eyewitness to everything who wrote it down for us, I will admit that creationists do have inside information! :)
BaseSixForty: "If you'd rather move towards a better model of the truth and are open to accepting a different model not built on such poor assumptions, I would encourage you to actually read up on the work of Dr Humphreys (and others) on this issue."
Tatarize: "Except that the falseness of such things would require that yet more things are false, and yet more things are false. In order to suppose that that nonsense is true I would have to eject the whole of science."
No - you'd just have to eject the philosophical assumptions of naturalism, materialism, empiricism, and things like that, upon which evolutionary views are falsely built. But since those are such flawed philosophies anyway, ejecting them would probably be a good thing.
Tatarize: "In order to conclude that magnetic fields are decaying which is based on the strong evidence of them not actually declining but fluctuating."
Except the evidence says that they ARE decaying.
Tatarize: "I would need to ignore radiometric dating and the understanding of how rocks form."
Radiometric dating could still be useful, once we determine why there are the immense flaws which we clearly see. Once we understand that, we may actually be able to recalibrate it such that it provides the correct answers. Maybe not, but maybe. As for rocks forming, we already have great understanding of this. And it doesn't require much time at all! If you want, I can provide you tons of evidence of rapid rock formation.
Tatarize: "I would need to throw out nuclear physics. I'd need to get rid of electromagnetism and how atoms work."
No - since effectively none of this supports an old earth as opposed to a young earth.
Tatarize: "And apparently I'd need to accept that somehow Jesus restores the magnetic field."
Or maybe simply that it was a coincidence that it was approximately at that time frame. But if that's where the evidence points, why would you ignore it, regardless of the reason?
Tatarize: "Apparently that when God needed blood to fix the universe, and only his own blood had enough magic to do it, and he gave himself a body and killed it, that one of the things, other than appeasing His need to punish His creations with His sacrifice of His blood, was to magically restore a field that all evidence based on a vast amount of other science says hasn't been decaying."
Now you seem to simply want to bash Christianity. If that's the route you would like to go, we can have that conversation. But that's drastically different than the science that we are discussing here. I'd rather stick to the science.
Tatarize: "Even basic physics would need to be wholesale ejected, even if I can personally observe them, not to mention everything about proper geology, biology, genetics, etc. I'd have to say that humans having the same flawed gene GULOP on our Chromosome 8 and Chimpanzees on their Chromosome 8, which breaks the production of vitamin C must be somehow wrong (even though you can look directly at the pretty damned identical codes). I'd need to conclude that the broken viruses in their genomes in the exact same place as our genome must be somehow coincidental (along with the several dozen identical occurrences, and pretty much all the same broken viruses in all the genomes of all the animals on the planet). Because common ancestry must be thrown out the window because if the Earth is young than the human-chimp ancestor that lived 7.8 million years ago can't have existed. The fact that all genomes fall into a nested hierarchy must be somehow indicative of nothing."
Once again, you are making arguments for points that we aren't discussing. If you want to discuss those we can, but none of them really should have any bearing on the issues of ocean salinity levels or the Earth's magnetic field. Those should stand or fall on their own. Analyze them on their own merits, and then we can go on and look at all these other issues.
Incidentally, there are many other reasons that adequately explain many of the genome similarities that you brought up, none of which would require common ancestry, and none of which suffer from the problems for common ancestry. As for your claim that all genomes fall into a nested hierarchy, in the method of common descent, that just simply isn't true. And it's not even close. And a pseudo-nested hierarchy is exactly what would be expected in a creationist model, so it fits much better anyway. We can discuss that if you want, but I'd advise against it for your sake. The area of genetics so clearly falls on the side of creation, and so much can't even begin to be explained by evolution, I can't fathom how biologists hang onto the quickly dying theory of biological evolution. Geologists at least have radiometric dating, and cosmologists at least have distant starlight, both of which seemingly might be hard for creationists to reconcile. But biology is nothing but an evolutionary mess, and a creationist viewpoint is literally thousands of times more coherent.
Tatarize: "I think you grossly underestimate how interconnected all of science is and how much of it you need to reject to unilaterally reject some part of it."
I'm well aware of how connected it is. And quite frankly, it all fits so well into the creationist paradigm, I stand in awe of how amazingly connected God did design this world. I actually think it's you who underestimate how interconnected evolutionary science is with the philosophical foundations of naturalism, materialism and empiricism. You don't have to reject any part of science really - to get to the truth, you just need to eject faulty philosophical assumptions.
Tatarize: "Especially for a theory based on a no evidence, save a tiny obsolete claim by somebody whose claims are pretty universally rejected, but somehow saving core elements of that rejected claim because somehow ignoring the fact that their evidence was wrong allows one to take those same flawed data and apply it a different claim? Just add Noah's Flood the earth's core flipping around for no apparent reason at all, and suddenly being restored through blood sacrifice of God by God for God."
In the end, it simply seems to come back to the fact that you reject the science because you don't like where it leads. You clearly reject God, so I guess it seems natural that you would reject any science that would lead to him. That explains why many people accept the philosophies that I mentioned above. If you want to reject God, you need to have some platform upon which to build your beliefs about the universe. And those platforms, no matter how precarious or flawed, will have to be absolute, for they are the only thing you have to explain the world around you. But that doesn't mean they lead to truth - they simply lead to a philosophically preferred explanation.
In the end, I think the eminent evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin, in a refreshingly stark moment of honest clarity, said it best: "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Science itself doesn't disprove creation, it actually supports it immensely. Only if you were to preemptively believe creation was false do you end up with a version of science which attempts to disprove creation. And even then, it falls far short.
No comments:
Post a Comment