What is creation science?

[peter grimes]

Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

Your claim is that because the oldest specks we have that can give a good date are zircons (which form in water) then we must conclude that there could not have been any rock not formed in the presence of water?
[wikilink to oldest rocks if anyone's interested]

In El Mac's words, that's a bit of a stretch.

I prefer the term shoehorning.

Not to mention the shoehorning about spirit blowing across a dark water covered world somehow supposedly meaning that a celestial orbital somethingorother impacted earth from a retrograde orbit, causing earth's solar orbit to decay to its present state. "blowing" seems a bit of a stretch for that.

But shoehorn away! Or you could just insist that everyone read that link I posted above which, I'm pretty certain, mirrors your position accurately.

 

[Arakhor]

According to the Enuma Elish Saturn's companion was sent on its own way to inform the gods of Marduk's ascendency, Titan still orbits Saturn.

So the companion was sent to warn the other gods, yet you think Pluto is a viable choice, given that it's out in the furthest reaches of the Solar System and barely interacts with any part of it?

I hope that you're not relying on the Titus-Bode Law as an example of your "mathematical relationships". It's unreliable beyond a few data-points and is not considered to be a proper 'law'.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Not to mention the shoehorning about spirit blowing across a dark water covered world somehow supposedly meaning that a celestial orbital somethingorother impacted earth from a retrograde orbit, causing earth's solar orbit to decay to its present state. "blowing" seems a bit of a stretch for that.

I disagree. Shoehorning implies cramming existing evidence into a theory. There is no evidence of Earth being forced into another orbit from the asteroid belt.

The correct scientific term for such an impressive load of bollocks is: Loopy banana ****oo daiquiri arseshake ... I think. Not my field of expertise.

edit: Your link was at least creative.

 

[Berzerker]

It's a bit of a stretch to insist we should be surprised that the ancients noticed the day/night cycle, to be honest.

I'm surprised by their description of "existence" before day and night began

I hereby conclude that wombats realise the Earth is spinning.

I might reach the same conclusion if they wrote Genesis

Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

Your claim is that because the oldest specks we have that can give a good date are zircons (which form in water) then we must conclude that there could not have been any rock not formed in the presence of water?

In El Mac's words, that's a bit of a stretch.

I prefer the term shoehorning.

And yet these zircons are why researchers are now claiming water was here long before the conventional wisdom named that period the Hadean. Are they shoehorning? I'm relying on them...

Not to mention the shoehorning about spirit blowing across a dark water covered world somehow supposedly meaning that a celestial orbital somethingorother impacted earth from a retrograde orbit, causing earth's solar orbit to decay to its present state. "blowing" seems a bit of a stretch for that.

The "blowing" gave a dark, water covered world night and day. That means the world was spinning close(r) to a star. If the Earth formed at the asteroid belt where we find our water, then Gen 1:2 is consistent with the science.

So the companion was sent to warn the other gods, yet you think Pluto is a viable choice, given that it's out in the furthest reaches of the Solar System and barely interacts with any part of it?

That doesn't mean Pluto was always out there. If it was a moon of Saturn and was ejected it crossed the orbits of the 2 outer planets and settled down into a new orbit.

I hope that you're not relying on the Titus-Bode Law as an example of your "mathematical relationships". It's unreliable beyond a few data-points and is not considered to be a proper 'law'.

That wouldn't effect Saturn and Pluto, but the law places planets here and at the asteroid belt. I dont think the Earth formed here, I think it formed at the freeze line. So the ratio for planetary distances other than Neptune would be 2:1

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

People who wrote Genesis knew about day and night.
Wombats know about day and night.
Knowledge about day and night means you realise the Earth is spinning.
Wombats realise the Earth is spinning.


Also, as the Spartans would say, "If"

 

[Arakhor]

I'm not getting how it is obvious to an untrained observer on Earth that their planet is spinning, simply based on the apparent movement of the Sun. In fact, history would teach us that that is emphatically not the case.

 

[brennan]

And yet these zircons are why researchers are now claiming water was here long before the conventional wisdom named that period the Hadean. Are they shoehorning? I'm relying on them...

Zircons from Jack Hills in the Narryer Gneiss Terrane, Yilgarn Craton, Western Australia, have yielded U-Pb ages up to 4.404 billion years,[9] interpreted to be the age of crystallization, making them the oldest minerals so far dated on Earth. In addition, the oxygen isotopic compositions of some of these zircons have been interpreted to indicate that more than 4.4 billion years ago there was already water on the surface of the Earth.

The claim that there was water=the whole planet was covered in water.

Yes. That would be shoehorning.

 

[timtofly]

I'm not getting how it is obvious to an untrained observer on Earth that their planet is spinning, simply based on the apparent movement of the Sun. In fact, history would teach us that that is emphatically not the case.

Consider those poor Eskimos who have months of near dark and near light. They would be hard pressed to even think the sun moved much at all. Even after figuring out that the earth was a sphere it would seem to be hard pressed to figure out it was rotating. Even in orbit, how would one know they were in a fixed spot, and it was the actual earth that was rotating beneath them? Unless humans were told from a reliable source they would never be able to figure out that the earth was spinning. Even humans that did know would be hard pressed to get others to believe them. It is a slightly more mathematically proven phenomenon than God, and at least some people claim to have experienced God. I do not see the logic in telling people that the earth was spinning, when they at their best thought that the planets and stars were actual living beings. Why would a spinning being have any more relevance than one that could move through the heavens? It would seem to me that spinning would only become relevant if the earth were to stop spinning and then humans may start considering that it is an important circumstance that should take up a portion of their everyday thought processes.

@ Brennan

The evolutionary model is that the whole earth was covered in water before "current" land appeared. Is the evolutionary model shoehorning as much as every other theorist on the planet? The point of major disagreement is that the current land after it arose out of the water was ever completely flooded again.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Tim, the evolutionary model doesn't claim that.

 

[peter grimes]

And yet these zircons are why researchers are now claiming water was here long before the conventional wisdom named that period the Hadean. Are they shoehorning? I'm relying on them...

...

The "blowing" gave a dark, water covered world night and day. That means the world was spinning close(r) to a star. If the Earth formed at the asteroid belt where we find our water, then Gen 1:2 is consistent with the science.

The zircons provide evidence that there was some surface water at 4.whatever billion years ago. That's all it says. Just because conventional wisdom (or, more accurately, a less complete understanding of the formation of the earth) is revised doesn't mean what you claim it means. It says nothing about the earth being completely covered in water. You claim to be relying on them but you're putting words in their mouth that they never said. You're reading far to much into the simple existence of zircons at that age.

And don't forget - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The evidence that earth has shifted orbits so dramatically must be more than just an old poem from Iraq.

Consider those poor Eskimos who have months of near dark and near light. They would be hard pressed to even think the sun moved much at all.

...

The evolutionary model is that the whole earth was covered in water before "current" land appeared.

During the summer the sun scribes a circle through the sky if you're a a higher latitude than ~67degrees. It's quite obvious that the sun moves. You can watch it traverse the entire horizon during the course of a single day. Minor detail

But what "evolutionary model" are you talking about? I am unaware of any model of the formation of the earth that predicts it being entirely covered in water.

 

[Harv]

There is no evidence of Earth being forced into another orbit from the asteroid belt.

First of all, if the Earth were in orbit around the Asteroid Belt and was forced into another orbit by a collision, wouldn't this new orbit be much more eccentric like a comet's?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well, yeah. It would cross paths with other planets as well.

Just non-science. You start with the conclusion: Genesis is right. And then you try to find evidence for it. And when that doesn't work, you make some up.

 

[Berzerker]

I'm not getting how it is obvious to an untrained observer on Earth that their planet is spinning, simply based on the apparent movement of the Sun. In fact, history would teach us that that is emphatically not the case.

I doubt the people responsible for Genesis were untrained, Abraham was a Sumerian and the Jews lived in Babylon much later when the Mesopotamian creation epic was still in fashion (The 12 day Akitu New Year's Festival during which creation was re-enacted).

The claim that there was water=the whole planet was covered in water.

Yes. That would be shoehorning.

Land may have appeared occasionally following an impact but the science tells us the world was spinning much faster with a closer moon causing immense tides. That toxic (Co2) environment would have quickly eroded away land and that would be true with just our amount of water, if this planet formed at the freeze line the ocean would have been much deeper. Repeating "shoehorn" is meaningless if you're gonna ignore the science.

The debate now is when did plate tectonics and continents form and the theories range from soon after the appearance of water to the oldest continental rock ~ 4 bya with continental cratons (cores) forming over the next 2 billion years. I think it was the LHB that gave us our plate tectonics followed by forming continents (and life).

Consider those poor Eskimos who have months of near dark and near light. They would be hard pressed to even think the sun moved much at all. Even after figuring out that the earth was a sphere it would seem to be hard pressed to figure out it was rotating. Even in orbit, how would one know they were in a fixed spot, and it was the actual earth that was rotating beneath them? Unless humans were told from a reliable source they would never be able to figure out that the earth was spinning. Even humans that did know would be hard pressed to get others to believe them. It is a slightly more mathematically proven phenomenon than God, and at least some people claim to have experienced God. I do not see the logic in telling people that the earth was spinning, when they at their best thought that the planets and stars were actual living beings. Why would a spinning being have any more relevance than one that could move through the heavens? It would seem to me that spinning would only become relevant if the earth were to stop spinning and then humans may start considering that it is an important circumstance that should take up a portion of their everyday thought processes.

I think people figured that stuff out before we had writing, even stone age people. Anyone who travels (eg, navigators) and pays attention to the sky will notice changes showing that not only is our world round but its spinning.

The zircons provide evidence that there was some surface water at 4.whatever billion years ago. That's all it says. Just because conventional wisdom (or, more accurately, a less complete understanding of the formation of the earth) is revised doesn't mean what you claim it means. It says nothing about the earth being completely covered in water. You claim to be relying on them but you're putting words in their mouth that they never said. You're reading far to much into the simple existence of zircons at that age.

Well, thats ironic... I never said researchers are claiming the world was covered by water. I said that based on Genesis and the scientific evidence, the researchers are getting there but they're still debating if continents were around at the same time water shows up.

Before we can say water did not cover the world, we need rock that didn't form in water. So far the water dates to ~4.3-4 byo and continental rock shows up at ~ 4 byo.

The evidence that earth has shifted orbits so dramatically must be more than just an old poem from Iraq.

Our water came from the asteroid belt.... The asteroid belt is evidence of a collision... The Earth was colliding with very large objects before life and land appear. Researchers think some of the planets have migrated much further distances without comparable collisions. It aint that dramatic.

I am unaware of any model of the formation of the earth that predicts it being entirely covered in water.

http://metro.co.uk/2008/12/31/early-earth-was-covered-in-water-274995/

Sounds like Genesis

The Australian scientists who produced the new computer simulation believe that billions of years ago the Earth’s deep mantle was 200C hotter than it is today. A hotter mantle would have thickened and buoyed up the Earth’s crust beneath the oceans, creating shallower basins and leading to the flooding of what is now land. The continental crust would also have spread, making it lower and flatter and more vulnerable to floods.

New Scientist magazine reported: “As the mantle cooled, land would have gradually appeared as the oceans became deeper and regions of high relief on the continental crust formed.”

First of all, if the Earth were in orbit around the Asteroid Belt and was forced into another orbit by a collision, wouldn't this new orbit be much more eccentric like a comet's?

Collisions tend to smooth out such eccentricities, its the push and pull of nearby objects that can result in a trampoline effect creating eccentric orbits.

 

[Arakhor]

I doubt the people responsible for Genesis were untrained, Abraham was a Sumerian and the Jews lived in Babylon much later when the Mesopotamian creation epic was still in fashion (The 12 day Akitu New Year's Festival during which creation was re-enacted).

How do you get anyone, Babylonians or otherwise, to assume that the Earth is spinning based on nothing at all? Neither Aristotle nor Ptolemy believed in a moving Earth or rotation around the Sun, for that matter. You can't just say that people believed that the Earth moved in space without any evidence. That's just silly.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

http://metro.co.uk/2008/12/31/early-earth-was-covered-in-water-274995/

It states until 2.5 billion years ago. A time I have been offering you a couple of times.

So when did it start? I hope you're not suggesting that lava-Earth was covered with water. How do you propose a transition from a hot boiling Earth to one being instantly water covered before land appears?

We know there have been surface rocks found between 2.5 and 3.8 billion years ago. So you really have to argue:

4 billion years ago: water covered Earth (while it's still rather hot)
Unspecified period in between: rocky surface appeared
End of unspecified period - 2.5 billion years ago: Water covered Earth part 2.

And pay close attention to the wording:

A new model of the early Earth suggests that until around 2.5 billion years ago oceans covered almost the whole of the planet

Sounds like Genesis

To you anything does because you're determined it does. A wind sounds like Earth being catapulted from the asteroid belt into a new, mindboggling steady orbit magically mimicking the orbits of other planets. First Earth is amongst the asteroid belt, because that's where water comes from. Never mind the meteorites that can transport the water, and which scientists tell us the water came from, nope, Bezerker knows better than these scientists, Asteroid belt: water -> Earth water.

A collision send Earth towards the sun. Forces from other planets manage to get it to orbit exactly as the other planets.

Then you claim "something"'s impact parted spin upon the Earth. Creating night and day.

So how did night and day come to exist? This world was hit by something(s) large enough to change its orbital parameters and this happened long after the giant impact forming the Moon.

Alternatively, the solar system was created because a lot of dust gathered in the center and created the sun, orbiting around this was more dust that created the planets in their neat orbits as we see them today. Not some made up impact.

Here's a nice easy link to explain all of this: http://science.howstuffworks.com/how-do-planets-form.htm

With the formation of the sun, the remaining gas and dust flattened into a rotating protoplanetary disk. Within this swirling debris, rocky particles began to collide, forming larger masses that soon attracted even more particles via gravity. These particles contracted under gravity to create planetesimals, which collided with one another to become the solid inner planets. Meanwhile, gases froze into giant balls that would build the outer gas giants.

When the Earth was forming it was boiling lava all over the place. When the EHB stopped Earth cooled and rains started falling, continental crusts started to appear. You cannot go from boiling lava Earth to water covered Earth without going through early continental crust Earth. So there has to have been land before water covered Earth. It simply has to be.

https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2013/10/Cooler-Early-Earth-Article.pdf

 

[timtofly]

How does one go from boiling to cooling at all? Where does water come from if there is no atmosphere to create such rain. Current theory says that there was water in the first 500 million years from the 4.5 billion year start. If a planet hit the earth how did the water it bring not vaporize upon impact? If the earth already had water, how did that not vaporize on impact? Either there was an ocean 4 billion years ago or there was not. If there was, there is no logical explanation of where it came from!! If it came from a few huge comets that is possible, but it would have to be done consistently to rapidly cool the crust and then put enough water to cover the majority of the earth's surface. Here is why:

Molten rock is like a liquid ocean that does not form any rock or anything else for that matter that can be used to give any age. It has to harden and cool. The first continent that did that is called Vaalbara. No one actually knows how big it was, because there are only two areas, one in Africa and one in Australia "remaining". It either hardened and remained that way avoiding molten lava, or it arose above the water and hardened that way. Back to either there was water or not. If there was no water, is still does not matter. If this area was once again buried in lava, it would not have held it's ability to be dated to this day. This continent may have been larger, but that is not a given. Supposedly there were 4 "super continents" that rose up out of the lava or water and was recycled, but each time the original Vaalbara would also have to have survived being recycled into the crust.

The theory is that the crust was thin and uniform over the whole surface of the earth and there was not any one particular area that was free from the recycling process. If there was water it would have been shallow because there were no continents prominent enough to avoid the recycling process. If there was no water, how would the lava eventually cool enough to create an atmosphere? If you envision the entire surface free of both water and lava, it is possible. If a couple of comets just accidently happened to be pulled into the earth, it could have added water and once again allowed the crust to be recycled except for the last remnant of Vaalbara found today in Africa and Australia. If the water was already there, then you have to explain how all of the continent was destroyed and only leaving these two sections intact and doing so without loosing huge amounts of water.

The second continent was UR, and the only part of it that is left is part of Africa, containing the original part of Vaalbara, Australia/Vaalbara, and India. The theory is that there may have been small islands of rock here and there in the sea of lava or water, but none remain today or of yet have not been found. The only reason they are thought to exist is to explain how the amount of water has not changed. Neither were there any ice caps, because there may not have been much water because of the heat. It is said that microbial plants and animals were responsible for generating the right amount of gas to even form an atmosphere. The next onslaught of tectonic activity wiped out these terraformers and the process started over, except each time there was more continent exposure keeping the plates from such volatile activity until there was the LHB that started the process over again. This occurred 4 or 5 times over a period of 3 billion years.

tldr: The whole issue is that the 500 million year old crust was thin and uniform and could not sustain huge continents, and if there was water it would have also been uniform and the same depth over the surface of the earth. It is possible that when water arrived it was only on the continent Vaalbara, but where did it go, when that continent was recycled and the next one formed? It would seem physically impossible in an ocean of lava for water to exist and cover any of the continent without boiling off. It would be possible for continents to form if the earth was already cool and covered with water. The continents would have risen, recycled minus the remaining area as the next continent was pushed upward. More than likely it was the rapid addition of water, that did cool the crust enough to allow continents to form. It could have also evaporated into an atmosphere and left and empty hardened crust that would not be considered a continent, but a barren wasteland. You are then putting all the water up in the air, and coming down like rain without any oceans around to influence the weather.

 

[brennan]

That toxic (Co2) environment would have quickly eroded away land

Citation required.

All moot really. You are entirely reliant on a coincidence in your position. The alleged 'evidence' in the Bible is just inadequate to make your claim.

If the Bible stated that 'The Earth formed from the remains of an exploded star billions of years ago, spinning as it cooled and hardened' then you might have a case. All you've got is 'day and night' and something about water. You can make with the ad-nauseum's until the cows come home, you're never going to convince people that it is a 'scientific explanation' because it simply isn't one.

 

[Agent327]

According to the Enuma Elish Saturn's companion was sent on its own way to inform the gods of Marduk's ascendency, Titan still orbits Saturn.

Yes, and?

What did I say thats "against" what we know? I never said only Earth has water and once a planet migrates to a new orbit and the cause of the migration ceases or lessens the sun's gravity is the magic.

But Earth basically is the only planet that has water. Planets do not travel to new orbits, basically. The sun's gravity is the 'magic' that keeps planets in their present orbit. So yes, you are arguing against what we know of how our planetary system cam to be. (And not very well.)

Yes they do, when Pluto nears perihelion Saturn's rings point to it. There's other mathematical relationships between the two, like their ascending nodes and their distances from the Sun. It dont matter when we found Pluto or that we downgraded it from planet.

It matters, as you said 'the ancients'. If Pluto wasn't discovered until 1930, the ancients didn't know about Pluto. (It's invisible to the naked eye and barely visible with a telescope.) And rings do not point, as they are circular: a circle does not have a beginning or end, so there's no point that can point anywhere. That's basic geometry.

The cause was God's "spirit" or wind blowing across a dark, water covered world. The result was a spinning planet close(r) to a star.

Most planets rotate, or they are dead. Did God's spirit blow over most planetary bodies and skip one or two? This is not a scientific explanation.

You need to cite rock from ~4.3-4 byo that didn't form in water.

Water is not an element of rocks, generally speaking. They are different materials. (And rock is not something you can cite.)

That toxic (Co2) environment would have quickly eroded away land

This is a nonsensical statement: CO2 does not erode land (though H20 can very easily.)

 

[Harv]

Collisions tend to smooth out such eccentricities, its the push and pull of nearby objects that can result in a trampoline effect creating eccentric orbits.

For Earth, I get (based on a hand calculation using an average orbital radius of 150 billion meters and an orbital period of 365.26 days) an orbital velocity of 29800 meters per second. For an object in the Asteroid Belt region, at 2.8 Astronomical Units, I get an orbital velocity of 17800 meters per second.

If the velocity of a hypothetical Earth located at 2.8AU were to suddenly change from 17800 meters per second to 29800 meters per second, it would move further away from the Sun, not closer to the Sun. (Assuming the velocity is in the direction normal to the direction from the Earth to the Sun) Actually, this is more than the escape velocity.

So you would need one collision to slow the earth down and bring it closer to the Sun, then another collision to speed it up to its current speed and orbit.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

How the Earth was formed, the breadbox version.

First there's lots of dusty stuff, or stuffy dust and a couple of rocks rotating around the sun in a disk
The stuffy dust clings together and to the rocks. This happens through impacts which create a lot of energy.
The ball of rocky stuffy dust grows and grows and collectes energy which makes it into a fiery ball of hot molten rock (baby yeah!)
Meteors keep a falling, Earth keeps a growing and glowing
Big Mars-sized planetoid hits Earth, they have a baby, it's called the Moon
After some time earth starts to cool, the impacts don't impart enough energy to keep the Earth molten.
Earth's crust starts solidifying. At this point any water that came with the meteorites boils away into space because of lack of atmos and the still hot planet.
The crust thickens, vulconos erupt stuff into the early atmosphere.
All this time meteorites continue to rain down on Earth, but this time not all the water boils away. Some of it rains back on the Earth.
The Earth is pretty flat, so the water covers the Earth with the incidental vulcano breaking through the water surface.
From this point on, the water covered Earth state is plausible.

I'm sure I got things wrong, so please anyone who knows about this stuff, correct me where I'm wrong.