Hi Bill,
The probabilistic nature of the risks associated with anthropogenic global warming do show up in the scientific reports. They are, however, often absent in the summaries found in the popular press.
Best,
Chris
Hi George, Mervin, Bill, Hugh, Chris,
-
A sphere of liquid rock with a radius of 1 meter will lose its liquidity within 100 hours (= 0.0184 year) if it is put in space (2 degrees Kelvin). You can verify this by observing the flows of lava from a volcano: they lose their liquidity within days, although the temperature of the environment is about 275 Kelvin.
-
From point 1 follows that a sphere of liquid rock with a radius of 6370 km loses its liquidity within 72000 years. To be absolutely sure, we apply an uncertainty factor of 1000, and conclude that the earth will have lost its flows of liquid rock underneath its thin crust (and its magnetic field) within 72 million years.
-
The argument that we are living on top of a gigantic nuclear power plant that is running yet for 4.58 billion years by burning uranium to keep the flows of rock running as well as the magnetic field of the earth, is nonsense. The radiation of such a gigantic nuclear power plant is missing.
-
The reaction to the empirical facts on the cooling down of liquid rock is a litmus test that distinguishes unbiased empirical scientists from evolutionary fundamentalists. Unbiased empirical scientist take the empirical facts on the cooling down of liquid rock seriously and they accept the physical laws that describe the cooling down process. Evolutionary fundamentalists ignore, put aside, or ridicule the empirical facts on the cooling down of liquid rock and do not accept the physical laws that capture the cooling down process. In doing so they bring back the Dark Ages.
I think you have to change the setting on that Victorian Era time machine of yours.
Since the original estimates by Lord Kelvin, not only has the radioactive elements of the core heat exchange altered the equations, but so has the measurements on the Earth’s mantle around the core.
Your numbers are woefully out of date … which is why you seem to be the only one using them.
I’m not sure what point you are making here, William. The lava from a volcano is solid rock from relatively shallow strata which is under such tremendously high pressure that it is liquefied and escapes to the surface. Yes, the temperatures at the surface can sometimes be a chilly 275 Kelvin (i.e., 35 degrees Fahrenheit) but it is the loss of ambient pressure as well as the presence of the cooling convention currents of air and/or water which causes the lava to return to its previous solid rock state. I don’t think anyone is surprised that lava under those conditions is able to cool and solidify quickly.
Even as a non-physicist/non-geologist, I recognize this kind of thinking as quite archaic and reminiscent of the Lord Kelvin arguments which were still being used in the 1960’s by my creation science movement associates. At the time I was largely unaware just how outdated they were. Now you’ve got me curious to investigate whether Young Earth Creationists are still citing them today.
I’m not clear how an arbitrary shot-in-the-ark “fudge factor” provides any absolute certainty. That doesn’t sound like “empirical science” to me. You have simply assumed that there are no sources of heat generation in the earth—despite all empirical evidence to the contrary—and then you try to prop up woefully obsolete calculations from Lord Kelvin by multiplying by 1000. Have you ever asked a physicist or earth scientist what they think of your claims? Do you think your hypothesis would survive the peer review of journal publication?
I assume that you are using the phrase “burning uranium” in a playfully colloquial way in order to refer to the heat produced by various radioisotopes? (Obviously, nobody claims that burning uranium heats the earth. The oxidation of uranium certainly takes place but it doesn’t explain the heat generation of radioactive decay.)
Nonsense? And missing, you say? Are you sure about that? This claim is in such stark defiance to what I recall from various textbooks that I did a quick search online to refresh my memory. I found:
This SA article is just a summary but I do recall seeing the actual calculations which estimate the heat production from radioactive decay in the earth’s crust. The numbers are quite enormous, a lot of heat. And I can’t help but think of the uranium ore processing that produced the first atomic bomb (and others which followed). If I recall, workers at Hanford, Washington used sophisticated equipment to separate the more radioactive U-238 so that it could be concentrated into a single “critical mass” to produce a tremendous amount of heat very quickly. But if that uranium had been left in the ground unprocessed, it still would have released its heat----although far more slowly and the heat would have been trapped for long periods in the surrounding rock strata. So when I read that you call the heating of the earth by radioactive decay (and other processes) “nonsense”, you make me curious to see your counter-intuitive calculations which would otherwise seem to defy common sense. (If I am misunderstanding your argument, please correct me!)
This is the first time I’ve ever heard of such an alleged “litmus test”. I’m also baffled as to the definition of an “empirical scientist” and would very much like to learn more about the apparent implied existence of “non-empirical scientists”. I don’t understand how there can be any sort of science which isn’t empirical! (Frankly, the only “scientists” I can name who never seem to publish the results of their own experiments, where they display their empirical methodologies, are “creation scientists”. Indeed, I’d be appreciative if someone could cite some of the most important scientific discoveries which arose from the published experiments of creation scientists such as Stephen Wise, Jason Lisle, and Nathan Jeanson.)
And while you are defining terms, I’d like to learn the definition of “evolutionary fundamentalist.” (Many have called me a Christian fundamentalist over the years and some people also know that I strongly affirm the Theory of Evolution. Although that might be enough to qualify me as an “evolutionary fundamentalist Christian”, I doubt that that is the meaning that you had in mind. So I hope you will explain your intended meaning.)
If I follow you on this, I suppose that I would agree–if that is actually the case. However, I am not aware of any scientists who contest the physics of cooling rocks. Citations please. Also, are you contesting the physics of the heating of rocks? It sounds like you are.
Could you please cite some examples of those so-called “evolutionary fundamentalist” who ridicule the physics of cooling liquid rocks? If you don’t have full citations at hand, would you please at least post some of the names of the offending scientists? I’ve read extensively on this topic and can’t say I’ve ever seen an example of what you describe.
I’m baffled by this claim. The “Dark Ages” is a largely obsolete term for a period of several centuries of the Middle Ages for which scholars once had very few historical records to help shed light on European civilization. Historians enjoyed a relative wealth of documentation, excavations, monuments, and relics from Ancient Greece and Rome as well as copious records explaining the Late Middle Ages—but the period in between was at one time a mysterious era with a frustrating paucity of systematic insight. Fortunately, scholars since the Renaissance have pieced together an enormous body of knowledge concerning the 5th to 10th centuries C.E. to where no historian known to me still calls them “the Dark Ages.” Thus, I can’t see how it would ever be possible for someone to “bring back the Dark Ages.” The knowledge of that era is here to stay. So I can only assume that you are using the term in some other way. Could you explain, please?
Of course, I’m also a bit confused as to how the science of evolution relates to the physics of liquid rock. Could you name some of the specific scientific laws and theories that these “evolutionary fundamentalists” have rejected so that I can look them up in my old textbooks?
Are you claiming that the radioisotopes which we can identify and measure in the earth’s crust throughout the planet are entirely absent below the upper strata and the earth’s core? If yes, did you determine that particular natural processes caused all of the earth’s radioisotopes to migrate to the surface? If so, what is your explanation for the earth’s liquid outer core and the significant heat which exists there? (If you deny that the earth has a liquid outer core, how can you dismiss all of the empirical evidence from s-waves and magnetic field data? Why should we assume that your rejection of basic earth science physics is any less outrageous that your claims that “evolutionary fundamentalists” are rejecting empirical science?)
I appreciate the systematic nature of your four-point argument but I’m having difficulty following it.
4 Likes
Why? To you, what differentiates “prehistory” from any other history? Where do you draw the line between “prehistory” and “history”? What do you believe happens beyond that boundary line which makes “falsification” and “duplication” impossible?
I find it interesting that a lot of my Christian brethren claim that science can’t make reliable claims about the past. You, however, seem to draw the line a bit differently. Could you perhaps explain how you think your position differs from theirs?
Some Christians have told me, “If it can’t be duplicated and tested, it’s not science. Therefore, if scientists can’t create life in the laboratory and then observe dinosaurs evolving into birds, that’s not real science.” Do you agree? Nobody can duplicate and test a “solar system” in a laboratory. Does that make the Copernicus’ Sun-and-Planetary-Motion Theory outside the boundaries of science?
(I’m not trying to imply that you affirm all of the above. I’m just trying to understand your position within a continuum that I’ve observed among my Christian brethren. So perhaps you can provide more details.)
1 Like
The invention differentiates pre-history from history.
Lots of interesting things happen that are not “scientific.” For example, trying to create a pre-historic biological time line from the shapes of old Bones and such. I think there is validity to statistical analysis made by comparing ancient DNA to modern DNA.
Karl Popper made the best argument for defining “science” a hundred or so years ago.
Falsifiability - Karl Popper's Basic Scientific Principle and see google.
The Cold Fusion claims were/are a good example of how science falsifies claims.
Agree that some astronomical observations are “scientific.” For example, the spectrum of helium was found in the sun before the gas was found on earth.
But “scientific” claims that come from a miss-use of probability and statistics as used by “Design” advocates should be obvious to anyone who has taken a first year college course or studied logic.
Evidence of a low power nuke “pile” was found on the surface in Africa. see google
1 Like
You didn’t name the invention but most people divide history and pre-history based on written documentation. Yet I asked William to explain his definition of history and pre-history because he implied that science can’t be applied to pre-history—even though scientific observation doesn’t require prior written records. That wouldn’t make sense so I suspected that he was assuming some alternate definition of his own.
You certainly won’t find any history/pre-history boundary or limitation to scientific observation in any science textbook. Indeed, all scientific observations involve observation of events in the past. For example, in a typical laboratory we observe events which occurred mere nanoseconds prior. Yet, an astronomer observing the sun collects data from events which occurred about 8.3 minutes ago and when observing other stars and even galaxies he/she may be viewing events from a few years to millions of years ago! There is no “pre-history” boundary creating imaginary limitations. Scientific observations and the scientific method doesn’t care when humans started writing and creating records.
Heat generation from radioactive decay is present everywhere on the earth and inside the earth and even within our bodies. No sustained “chain reaction” as in a nuclear pile is necessary for the production of heat from alpha, beta, and/or gamma decay. Every decay event releases thermal energy. So I’m very curious to see William’s explanation of why the earth isn’t generating enormous energies from radioactive decay—as well as the other subterranean heat generating processes described in physics textbooks. (He accused unnamed scientists of ignoring various laws of physics while casually rejecting lots of science on his own.)
Whoever told you that is seriously in error.
I’m not sure why Karl Popper’s “argument” would be better than all others but there’s certainly nothing about paleontologists and comparative anatomists applying the scientific method to “old bones” which conflicts with “falsifiability.” Falsification testing is central to their peer-reviewed journals.
Very true, but I’m not clear on how that relates to this thread.
Some? Perhaps I’m unclear on how you define “astronomical observations”. What are some examples of “non-scientific” astronomical observations?
I would just like to point out that NASA builds radioisotope thermoelectric generators for the deep space probes that produce all the power needed for a spacecraft from just the heat of a small pellet of radioactive material. No nuclear reactor needed. Multiple that small pellet by the size of the earth and you have all the heat you need to keep the core molten.
3 Likes
Bad choice of word. Should have written, “some interpretations of astronomical observations” referring to material such as found in https://answersingenesis.org/
-
Empirical science = science based on testable theories. Empirical science stands opposite of science that is concerned with untestable theories, or with theories that are in conflict with empirical facts.
-
For ages, people have believed that the earth was flat and the sun was spinning around the earth. Empirical science has proven this to be false. Nevertheless, it took about 150 years to replace the old religious based paradigm of the sun spinning around the earth by the empirical science based paradigm that the earth is spinning around the sun.
-
In my post on April 11th I gave you 8 empirical science arguments that the current paradigm that earth is billions of years old is in conflict with empirical science. Sooner or later the current paradigm will be replaced by the empirical facts.
-
One of the 8 arguments against the theory that the earth is billions of years old, is the empirical fact that a sphere of liquid rock with a radius of 1 meter loses its liquidity within 100 hours, and that a sphere of liquid rock with a radius of 6370 km loses its liquidity within 72000 years. The argument that the earth is a gigantic nuclear power plant that is burning for 4,358 billion years yet, and keeps the rocks underneath the thin earth crust in a liquid state, is simply a fairy tale. Yes, there is some radiation produced inside the earth, but its intensity is billions of times smaller than the intensity of the radiation inside the crushed nuclear powerplants of Tsjernobyl and Fukushima, where the rocks are not turned into a liquid state. Unbiased empirical scientists accept these facts. Evolutionary fundamentalists do not, because they find their theory that natural processes of decay have creative power if they are given billions of years of time more precious than empirical facts and the laws of physics and the integrity of science.
-
Notice that the empirical fact that the earth cannot be billions of years old, is only a secondary problem for current evolutionary theory. Current theory must be articulated and make a distinction between two types of change ( variation and innovation), which are now confused as well as the underlying mechanisms. Also see: http://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOEVOLJ/TOEVOLJ-5-1.pdf
As my teachers used to say, “Show your work!” Where is the math that shows this. Please include all assumptions made.
Sorry but it is an empirical fact that the earth is 4.543 billion years old ± a few years. Lord Kelvin using an argument similar to yours came up with an age of at least 20 million years and a max of 400 million years. Please explain why his argument is wrong.
Here are some quotes from the Abstract of the linked article (I separate some of the sentences to facilitate comprehension):
“We show that evolutionary programming of digital codes is a valid model for the evolution of nucleotide codes by random change within the boundaries of mutation protection, not for evolution by unbounded random change.”
“Our mutation protection perspective enhances the understanding of the evolutionary dynamics of digital and nucleotide codes and its limitations, and reveals a paradox between the necessity of dysfunctioning mutation protection for evolution and its disadvantage for survival.”
“Our mutation protection perspective suggests new directions for research into mutational robustness.”
William, I think you are a preacher without a pulpit. You insist that we need to make a distinction between two types of change (variation and innovation). This is not the distinction made in the article. And the article certainly doesn’t say that only one of these two categories of change is possible.
What it does say is that the authors can “model” changes allowed by a cell’s existing forms of mutation protection.
This is not a shocking finding. They say they cannot model evolutionary changes that involve changes outside the scope of what is allowed by the cell’s system of mutation protection.
You seem to be saying that because there are systems for protecting against mutations, that these systems are perfect, and thus there are no surprises within a cell’s genetic profile.
And yet, we have:
-
Undenied acceptance of “hyper-evolution” by several schools of YECs for the surviving animals released from the ark; and
-
Undenied acceptance of such “ring species” situations like the Alaskan and Southern rabbit populations that cannot interbreed with each other, but can interbreed with the “middle” population of rabbits in the northern tier of the USA.
Either you have to accept that small mutations, and shifts in alleles, can effectively promote speciation, or you have to accept that unpredictable mutations can and do happen despite the existence of repair systems.
You are chasing a ghost down a dead-end street … and there’s a cliff at the end.
(1) In my post #61 on May 5th , I estimated that a sphere of liquid rock with a radius of 6370 km loses its liquidity within 72 million years, based on the empirical fact that streams of lava from active volcanoes lose their liquidity within days. This estimation is in line with the calculation of Lord Kelvin that a sphere of liquid rock with a radius of 6370 km cools down completely within 20 million – 400 million years.
(2) The finding from empirical science that the earth cannot be 4.543 billion years old, is confirmed by the following empirical facts:
a) There is no gigantic nuclear power plant underneath our feet, which would be running yet for 4.543 billion years by burning uranium to keep the flows of rock running as well as the magnetic field of the earth. The radiation of such a gigantic nuclear power plant is absent, and therefore this gigantic nuclear power plant only exists in fairy tales.
b) The magnetic field of the earth, produced by the flows of liquid rock around the iron kernel of the earth, is decreasing. Since 1830, the field has diminished in strength by 10%. Counting back, 10 million years ago the magnetic field of the earth would have been at least 100 times stronger than now, making it impossible for the life that we know today to exist.
c) The spinning of the earth is slowing down. Therefore, 25 times between 1972 and 2015 an extra second has been added to the official time. Counting back, 15 million years ago the earth must have been spinning at least 100 times faster than now, making it impossible for the life that we know today to exist.
d) Due to wind and weather erosion of 0,1 mm per year, within 100 million years all mountains would have been eroded away. Instead, the peaks of most mountains are not worn, but sharp and pointed.
(3) Your claim that the earth is 4,543 billion years old is not an empirical fact, but a belief derived from the simplistic logic of Darwinism: small changes can be observed in living nature and will add up to big changes if you wait long enough, let’s say 4 billion years, which is pretty much time. But wait! Let’s say 4,543 billion years, because the number 543 will make the ignorant public believe that this amount of time has been calculated with the highest accuracy from loads of empirical evidence.
-
Evolution exists! No doubt!! Living nature continuously adapts to changing circumstances, by the mechanism of gene regulation and the recombination of gene variants and selection. The mechanism produces effective speciation, for instance by changing the beaks of finches, within a few generations; or the size and appearance of dogs, horses, ants, bees, dolphins, herrings, tomatoes, cabbages, tulips, daisies, etc. etc. But notice the following. The mechanism operates without the mutation repair systems having to take action and does not expand the seize of the DNA. The changes of the DNA produced by the mechanism are variations of the parameters of a biological system; this can be described mathematically as (a1, a2) → (b1, b2).
-
You are right, unpredictable mutations can and do happen despite the existence of repair systems! But notice the following. Without the mutation repair systems in every cell, the DNA would turn into complete chaos within a lifetime (Nobel Prize Chemistry 2015). Unfortunately, not all mutations are repaired. Unrepaired mutations lead to cancer and hereditary diseases and severe selective disadvantage of the organism and the population of which it is member. Therefore, a population with dysfunctional mutation repair will show a high rate of cancer and syndrome of Down like mutations. Such a population cannot be the breeding ground for improvement of the DNA. According to Darwin, it will lose the struggle for survival of populations with well-functioning mutation repair systems, within a few generations. Only in Wonderland, the accumulation of irreparable, inheritable, code expanding, advantageous mutations can produce, after thousands of years, innovations of the DNA, mathematically represented by (a1, a2) → (b1, b2, b3). See further: “The evolutionary dynamics of nucleotide and digital codes: a mutation protection perspective”, by Dr. William DeJong and Prof. Dr. Hans Degens in the peer reviewed Open Evolution Journal; mentioned in my previous post #73.
A four legged hippo-like population does not become a whale overnight. And yet we have found dozens of intermediate forms showing that once a sub-population has “budded” off of the common ancestor’s population, small incremental changes can and do occur.
You have zero explanations for how and why these intermediate forms appear and disappear, consistent with multi-million year process, with the increasingly more-whale-like forms coming after the the more-hippo-like forms. There is no explanation for this pattern in a Young Earth model, nor in an old earth model with special creation of individual species in the early years.
Your only possible explanation is that God intentionally made the life and death patterns of the pre-whale populations to look like Evolution. So either assert that this is God’s intention to deceive, or give another explanation.
As for claim that you have proof that the Earth is only somewhere less than 70 million years, rather than 5 billion years or less than 6,000 years, even for you this is a hair-splitting quibble. This is what @Bill_II was alluding to about Lord Kelvin. Bill doesn’t grasp that you are simply repeating the same kind of arguments that Lord Kelvin offered.
In fact, Lord Kelvin and you are wrong because you have not developed a more complex model of a liquid core Earth that also has developed a mantle that reduces heat loss… and because you are using a straw man argument about a “nuclear reactor”. The core does not need to be a nuclear reactor for the cumulative affects of radiative energy from all sorts of radioactive ores to change Lord Kelvin’s (and your) time estimates.
As far as I’m concerned, once you have the Earth at more a 10,000 years old, you cannot be arguing for Creationism… and you are simply taking pot-shots at the scientific establishment.
Since you have made the exact same claims - - without adjustment or correction - - despite the considerable input BioLogos participants have offered you, I’m closing my participation in this thread. I certainly don’t know what you think you are proving if even your analysis disproves a Young Earth. And you have no grasp of how variation in a population, once it leads to a break in reproductive compatibility, can easily turn into speciation - - as demonstrated in discussions on the North American rabbit populations and any number of Ring Species and virtual ring species.
2 Likes
Thank you for your input, @WilliamDJ, but let’s take a bit of a look at some of your arguing points.
Lord Kelvin made this proposition in the 1890s, would you agree that the field of geophysics has made new discoveries since then? I’m not anywhere close to competent in the field, but I’m going to assume that our knowledge base is greater now than it was then, and his estimate (with an extremely wide estimate, I might add) might not be aligned with the most recent science.
Also, your point #2 which includes the fluctuating magnetic field, slowing earth rotation, and wind erosion, is making a huge assumption. Would you agree that our data on such topics is very limited and could possibly NOT represent a consistent, linear progression of these factors?
The age of the earth is based much more on radiometric dating than on “the simplistic logic of Darwinism”. Radiometric analysis of multiple isotopes is remarkably consistent at placing the age of the earth around 4.5 billion years old. While it is possible the 0.543 may overstate the precision of the dating, it in no way diminishes the evidence.
I assume you are suggesting that variation can occur, but only within “kinds”. There is plenty of scientific evidence in transitional species that indicate that genetic variation and natural selection over time does indeed lead to speciation. Assigning variables to hypothetical mutations does not make it a mathematical argument.[quote=“WilliamDJ, post:76, topic:35581”]
Without the mutation repair systems in every cell, the DNA would turn into complete chaos within a lifetime (Nobel Prize Chemistry 2015).
[/quote]
The 2015 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded for “mechanistic study of DNA repair”. It was not awarded for any implications for what would happen without DNA repair mechanisms, as the placing of your footnote suggests.[quote=“WilliamDJ, post:76, topic:35581”]
Therefore, a population with dysfunctional mutation repair will show a high rate of cancer and syndrome of Down like mutations. Such a population cannot be the breeding ground for improvement of the DNA.
[/quote]
No one is suggesting that evolution requires a special population with dysfunctional mutation repair. Your claims about such a hypothetical population are not relevant. Plenty of mutations remain unrepaired to account for the necessary genetic variability.
On a separate note, I would like to read about your ideas regarding God’s creation of life on an earth that is somewhere between 20 and 400 million years old, based on Lord Kelvin’s calculations. This time frame is inconsistent with both standard Evolutionary Creation and standard Young Earth Creation time frames.
2 Likes
First you said it was 72,000 years.
A thin layer of lava is not a good model to use. It is a very thin layer that loses heat from all sides. A thin layer has a very high surface area to volume ratio. A sphere has the lowest possible surface area to volume ratio. Also, while the crust does quickly become solid the interior of the layer takes quite a bit longer to reach ambient temperature. It is also cooler than the interior to begin with.
So what are some of the problems with your calculation?
You don’t specify the initial temperature of the interior of the earth. It is considerably higher than the temperature of lava.
You don’t specify the heat conduction of rock. It varies with temperature, pressure and composition of the rock. The USGS has a nice report if you want all the gory details.
You don’t specify the insulating property of a solid crust over an underlying liquid core.
You don’t provide the heat balance calculations. The sun and radioactive decay do contribute heat to the sphere.
You don’t provide any calculations on how the heat in the interior is conducted to the exterior. A 6370 km sphere is too large for the heat to simply escape at the surface.
No one ever said there was a nuclear power plant in the interior. Did you not read my point about the RTG’s that NASA builds?
The paleomagnetic evidence shows that the Earth’s magnetic field has periodically decreased in intensity and even reversed direction on average every 450,000 years. There goes the “created 10,000 years ago” argument. The evidence for this is recorded in rocks that cool and retain the magnetic field present at the time. Funny how all of the YEC folk seem not to know this.
No the definition of time (actually the definition of a second), that was defined by us, is running faster than the time kept by the rotation of the earth. We adjust the clocks to keep in sync with the earth.
Except for the inconvenient fact that mountains are actually growing. Ever hear of plate tectonics? Something even Ken Ham admits exists.
Age of the earth calculations pre-date Darwin, but of course you know that because we have all told you this before.
It has been. As more and more empirical data is collected the number becomes more and more precise.
4 Likes
No, Earth’s rotation really is slowing, thanks to tidal friction with the moon. Evidence of shorter days in the past can be seen in fossil corals. 400 million years ago, there were 420 days in a year, for example. How this helps the case for a young Earth I have no idea.
2 Likes