Young Earth Creationism in the LDS Church

[_DrW]

As you and Huckleberry point out,
this is a very slow process.

I recall asking a Mormon seminary teacher in
Idaho Falls, years ago, where the sediment
deposits from Noah's worldwide flood were
locally.

His answer -- Under the Snake River area lava
flows, which happened in Jaredite and Nephite
times, after that great flood.

At least the seminary teacher had answers.
The local non-sectarian high school
Science teachers had no answers to give
out to us kids, on such topics.

UD

As an aside for subgenius, Franktalk and Little Nipper, the lower Snake River lava flows are a part of a geological formation covering some 63,000 square miles, and known as the Columbia River Basalt Group. This new real estate was formed with relatively high outflow rates from about 17 million years ago that continued at lower rates on and off until about 6 million years ago.

In many places hexagonal columns of basalt from this event have been exposed and can be seen towering hundreds of feet above the river (in Hell's Canyon for example). These columns are formed when the basalt cools very slowly (unlike the pillow lava which is the same stuff only extruded under water). There are also some great examples of these perfectly hexagonal columns along the coast in the UK. They form headlands that are not rapidly eroded.

Basalts can be radiometrically dated by measuring the Argon 39 / Argon 40 ratio, with the Argon 40 coming from the decay of Potassium 40. Basalt is a hard crystalline rock and it is difficult to argue that, at a depth of more than a mile in places, these ratios would have been affected by atmospheric fallout from nuclear bomb detonations (a favorite apologist canard, as we have seen).

Also, as I have mentioned before on these kinds of threads, any offset required to account for radiation from nuclear tests can be easily determined and dialed in. If anyone needs to have that process explained again, I would be happy to do it.

[_Franktalk]

Wow Frank. So you believe the continents drifted apart in the past few thousand years? How do you account for the millions of years of sea floor spreading deposits in the Atlantic? You do realize those deposits have a magnetic orientation depending on when they were laid down. Do you also happen to believe the magnetic field on Earth has changed directions many times over the past few thousand years as well?

You see Tobin I do not know what happened. But I am not sure that science has it right. I have read many things which give conflicting accounts of the past. I also believe in a nonlinear past. The reason I do is because I believe in miracles. I find it hard to understand someone who says the Bible is the Word of God yet they cut and paste what they wish to from the words. It is very easy for me to say I don't know. But I give scripture the benefit of the doubt. But that only applies if the interpretation of scripture is correct. I would not be surprised if what we think about the past is way off the mark.

If you really wish to read something which examines data and does not follow the orthodox science then read Wandering Continents and Spreading Sea Floors on an expanding Earth by Lester King. I enjoy different analysis of data and alternative theories. I see no reason why a collection of hands in a group of geologist makes their theory any better than another that is also tied to the data. If is very possible that everything I have ever read about the past written by long age geologist is wrong. I am open to many possibilities.

[_Franktalk]

This is interesting.

Assuming that the island I now live upon was built
up from tremendous past lava flows from the
mid-Pacific hot spot, how long ago do you figure
plate drift left that same hot spot under Maui,
instead of the Big Island?

UD

According to the theory of Lester King the Pacific Ocean floor is ancient. He feels that the Atlantic floor is of a different age. I am no expert on these matters. But I don't trust blindly people who say they are experts. There has been too much opinion overturned in science in the last two hundred years to make me sure of orthodox science.

Now the really hard part of Lesters theory to swallow is that the Earth has expanded in the past. In looking at the data from his perspective its does make sense. But people never get to that point they just cast it off as nuts. But what if the changes described in scripture were due to an expanding earth? Are we sitting on evidence of scriptural history but the science community will not even consider the theory. This would be in line with what the Bible has said about man and his ideas. Did God makes changes to the earth in such a way that man would consider it foolishness to even check? God does not hide anything but man is self blinded. He chooses to be blind. Now I do not know the details about the past. I was not there in the distant past. But I figure why not give all theories a chance and see which ones rise. And by rise I mean which ones will stand the test of time, like a hundred years. So for me the jury is still out but I will not accept a vote on the past.

[Guest]

Wow Frank. So you believe the continents drifted apart in the past few thousand years? How do you account for the millions of years of sea floor spreading deposits in the Atlantic? You do realize those deposits have a magnetic orientation depending on when they were laid down. Do you also happen to believe the magnetic field on Earth has changed directions many times over the past few thousand years as well?

You see Tobin I do not know what happened. But I am not sure that science has it right. I have read many things which give conflicting accounts of the past. I also believe in a nonlinear past. The reason I do is because I believe in miracles. I find it hard to understand someone who says the Bible is the Word of God yet they cut and paste what they wish to from the words. It is very easy for me to say I don't know. But I give scripture the benefit of the doubt. But that only applies if the interpretation of scripture is correct. I would not be surprised if what we think about the past is way off the mark.

If you really wish to read something which examines data and does not follow the orthodox science then read Wandering Continents and Spreading Sea Floors on an expanding Earth by Lester King. I enjoy different analysis of data and alternative theories. I see no reason why a collection of hands in a group of geologist makes their theory any better than another that is also tied to the data. If is very possible that everything I have ever read about the past written by long age geologist is wrong. I am open to many possibilities.

Franktalk,

Expanding Earth Theory has been around for a long time (more than a century). This is a good example of an alternative hypothesis that proponents claim is supported by observational data. Opponents would say that proponents are mis-interpreting these data.

The main problem for Expanding Earth Theory is that there is no known physical mechanism for this hypothetical process. The scientific consensus is that the phenomena cited in support of the hypothesis are better explained by other mechanisms which do not violate the laws of physics.

While this is interesting stuff, it doesn't help YECs with their 10,000 year old Earth problem. Expanding Earth Theory does not postulate, or require, a change in the age of the Earth from that determined by mainstream science.

For anyone interested in Expanding Earth Theory, here is link to a short, well illustrated PPT presentation on the subject.

http://www.dehilster.com/docs/TheGrowingEarth.pp

If the link above does not work, please try this one:

http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_72.pdf

[_Franktalk]

Don't know why Franktalk* puts so much of his faith in erosion rates. Erosion and sedimentation rates are highly variable.

Both sedimentation and erosion are dependent to a large extent on differences in elevation, which occur because of plate compression and the consequent uplift and folding of the Earth's crust. As you and Huckleberry point out, this is a very slow process.
_________________________

*Edited to change subgenius to Franktalk (the guy who really loves erosion) -- sorry subgenius.

I do love erosion. It has carved some of the most beautiful landscapes. Now if you could point me to where atomic decay was verified by alternative means we could move along. Can't you find just one detailed verification of atomic decay? (not radiocarbon) You see I want to place my faith in something I have really checked out. So show me some studies that will give me the faith that you have in atomic decay. If you can't find one study then we need to have a discussion as to what that means.

[_Franktalk]

Franktalk,

.....The main problem for Expanding Earth Theory is that there is no known (or at least agreed upon) mechanism for this hypothetical process. The scientific consensus is that the phenomenon cited in support of the hypothesis are better explained by other mechanisms which do not violate the laws of physics.

So you are saying that because you can't imagine a way that the earth could expand it makes the theory false? Is that what you are saying? Not to long ago men could not imagine that time was linked to space. I am sure the men of that time and space if they would be given the theory of relativity would have the exact answer you just gave me. Of course we know now they would be wrong. In time maybe science will find a mechanism to do what you believe is impossible. I am open minded. Are you saying that science is closed minded?

[_DrW]

Franktalk,

.....The main problem for Expanding Earth Theory is that there is no known (or at least agreed upon) mechanism for this hypothetical process. The scientific consensus is that the phenomenon cited in support of the hypothesis are better explained by other mechanisms which do not violate the laws of physics.

So you are saying that because you can't imagine a way that the earth could expand it makes the theory false? Is that what you are saying? Not to long ago men could not imagine that time was linked to space. I am sure the men of that time and space if they would be given the theory of relativity would have the exact answer you just gave me. Of course we know now they would be wrong. In time maybe science will find a mechanism to do what you believe is impossible. I am open minded. Are you saying that science is closed minded?

Franktalk,

You have indicated that you have a technical background, but it doesn't shine through very well sometimes. Think about how one should apply the scientific method here. One needs to postulate a mechanism and then show that this mechanism is explanatory for the relevant data set. If one mechanism doesn't work, one can always look for another one. Expanding Earth Theorists have no underlying mechanism, and there are a lot of phenomenological problems with this theory as well

What I am saying is that since the Expanding Earth Theorists can point to no known mechanism for this process, and since it therefore cannot be described or understood physically, it isn't of much use in practice. One doesn't need it to launch communication satellites, drill for oil, navigate across the ocean, etc.

I am not saying that the advocates of this theory are crackpots, or that they do not deserve to be heard. However, until they can come up with a verifiable mechanism, it remains in the area of speculation. Sure it is fun, but not something one would want to put in a geology text at this point.

Unlike Expanding Earth Theorists, Young Earth Creationists are considered crackpots, because they have no physical evidence to back their claims, and their proposed physical mechanism is - well - magic.

[Guest]

Don't know why Franktalk* puts so much of his faith in erosion rates. Erosion and sedimentation rates are highly variable.

Both sedimentation and erosion are dependent to a large extent on differences in elevation, which occur because of plate compression and the consequent uplift and folding of the Earth's crust. As you and Huckleberry point out, this is a very slow process.
_________________________

*Edited to change subgenius to Franktalk (the guy who really loves erosion) -- sorry subgenius.

I do love erosion. It has carved some of the most beautiful landscapes. Now if you could point me to where atomic decay was verified by alternative means we could move along. Can't you find just one detailed verification of atomic decay? (not radiocarbon) You see I want to place my faith in something I have really checked out. So show me some studies that will give me the faith that you have in atomic decay. If you can't find one study then we need to have a discussion as to what that means.

Franktalk,

There are a number of independent verifications of radiometric dating (regardless of what your creationist websites might say). The reason folks use radiometric dating is because it is the most convenient, reproducible, and widely applicable method available for geological samples. It is considered the Gold Standard in Earth sciences and other independent dating methods often compare their estimates to those of radiometric (isotope ratio) dating.

There are methods that are completely independent of radiometric dating that either confirm the age of the Earth / Solar System at around 4.5 billion years, or can be used to put lower limit (older than) estimates on the age of the Earth. These include:

Helioseismology is the measurement of the differences in the propagation of sound waves in the sun as its composition changes as it burns its nuclear fuel. This radiometric-independent measurement gives an age for the sun of approximately 4.57 +/- 0.11 billion years.
A. Bonanno, H. Schlattl, L. Paternò (2002). "The age of the Sun and the relativistic corrections in the EOS". Astronomy and Astrophysics 390: 1115. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020749.

Nitrogen content of natural diamonds puts an "older than" limit on the age of the Earth's upper mantle at 200 million to 2 billion years. As you know, diamonds are made of very densely packed carbon atoms and it takes a long time for nitrogen to migrate into the diamond matrix. This work was done in the early 1980s but holds up well.
T. Evans, Zengdu Qi (1981). "The kinetics of the aggregation of of nitrogen atoms in diamond". Proceedings of the Royal Society, London. A 381, 159-178.

In terms of a detailed comparison of radiometric dating from the long lived radionuclides, those used to get estimates on the age of the Universe, for example, one needs to consider other measures from astrophysics and astronomy.

The Uranium 238 / Thorium 232 ratio measurement yields an age for the Universe of 14.5 + 2.8 /-2.2 billion years. (Did not look for a reference here - this is a well known number). If you insist, I can find one.

The most well defined and accurate measurement we have of the age of the universe comes from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) project. The WMAP probe mission was launched in 2001 and was successful in measuring variations in the microwave background from the Big Bang, from which the age of the Universe could be accurately determined at 13.7 billion years.

This measurement has already been alluded to on this thread or the TBM=YEC thread as the microwave background measurement. It is well known.

Papers from this project are the most cited papers in physics and astronomy so far this millennium. A good paper reference for this work is:

http://www.sciencewatch.com/ana/hot/phy/08marapr-phy/

An image of the WMAP microwave sky is shown below. Colors represent temperature fluctuations.(The average temperature is slightly more than 2 degrees K - 2 degrees above absolute zero).




If you want to know more about WMAP, there is also plenty of information on the internet. The WMAP team was awarded the 2012 Gruber Prize in Cosmology for this more than decade long data collection and analysis project.

You will notice that this new 13.7 billion year (new) Gold Standard number from WMAP for the age of the universe lies within the uncertainty (4.5 - 2.2) of the Uranium/ Thorium ration measurements.

You can't ask for any more than that.

[_Ceeboo]

Good morning DrW (Well, my morning is probably your evening............so good evening to you, friend)

For anyone interested in Expanding Earth Theory, here is link to a short, well illustrated PPT presentation on the subject.

http://www.dehilster.com/docs/TheGrowingEarth.pp

I was/am interested in this EET presentation, but the link doesn't seem to be working (I get an "OOPS" returned)

Peace,
Ceeboo

[Guest]

Good morning DrW (Well, my morning is probably your evening............so good evening to you, friend)

For anyone interested in Expanding Earth Theory, here is link to a short, well illustrated PPT presentation on the subject.

http://www.dehilster.com/docs/TheGrowingEarth.pp

I was/am interested in this EET presentation, but the link doesn't seem to be working (I get an "OOPS" returned)

Peace,
Ceeboo

Well good morning, Ceeboo.

Sorry about the link. Try the one below. It is an illustrated abstract of the pretty much the same material, and probably of more interest anyway.

http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_72.pdf

This one works for me on both Chrome and Safari / PC and Mac, so it should be good.

Thanks for the heads up. Will put this updated link on the original post.