I haven’t had time yet to study this article in depth and i am no scientist, however, there are quite the number of “interpretations” used in attempting to reconcile the problems this causes the old age model (by the article’s own admission) and it seems to me that this could be evidence in support of a rapid global event such as the biblical flood.
We note that many of the South American paleopoles are inconsistent with the classic Pangea A reconstruction. We have calculated a displacement rate of ~18 cm/yr from the currently-accepted APWP for South America, highlighting how this is unrealistic from a plate motion standpoint. These lines of evidence provide further support for widespread remagnetizations.
the implications of unidentified remagnetization throughout the geologic record may be profound. We find the evidence presented in this study compelling, despite the fact that a solid theoretical background for the remagnetization mechanism is still lacking, and we suggest it should be investigated further.
I dont think that either of the above two conclusions are problematic if one used the Biblical flood model
What? No. The article identified some possible remagnetization of already magnetized rock and were able to argue for their position because paleomagnetism is such a reliable tool demonstrating hundreds of geomagnetic reversals and the historical speed of continental plates.
Yes, this says 18 cm/yr different from some previous reconstructions (without remagnetization). Say that again with me outloud. 18 cm per year. Different. To get pangea breaking apart in a YEC model, you don’t need a difference of 18 cm per year. You need a difference of thousands of kilometers for a year.
So you also just ignore the facts that all the rocks used in the study are hundreds of millions of years old?
I mean this is just science and action where we learn new things and people propose various hypotheses, but this doesn’t really do anything to change literally the entire field of geology and certainly not paleomagnetism.
that is exactly correct and exactly what I believe. For me, catastrophic changes that produce these distances are not problematic at all with the biblical flood model. Most Christians believe that the only reason Noah and his Ark survived the flood was not because of excellent sea worthiness, but also by Divine hands steadying the ship.
Can you show me where they (rapid plate movements) should be problematic in scripture? I honestly think that the biblical model is so much less problematic, it is so more consistent, and it really is easier to believe because there is less inconsistency about it.
this is of no relevance, you say they are hundreds of millions of years old based on the premise of old age earth…which has to make this presupposition because it refuses to believe in God and the possibility of miracles. So you have no choice but to accept such models…there is no secular alternative.
Which btw bring us to a more important problem for you to consider (as you want to focus on time issues)…in the secular model, where did the energy and matter come from that started the big bang? If the very foundation of the secular model cannot be proven, why the strict adherence to the rest of it (particularly the millions/billions of years part)?
This is a lie and you darned well know it, the truth has been repeated often enough here by several of us.
This self-righteous, insulting attitude is not fitting.
It is neither: the “high ground” is the text and what it meant to the original audience, because that is what the Spirit inspired His chosen writers to set down. It is also what YEC blatantly despises.
I said “Enough”, but you manage to be sufficiently insulting to other Christians here I stepped in anyway.
also, the following doesnt appear to point to plate techtonics to you? gensis 7 11In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month, all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.
Not in the least – it points to the model I posted.
Theological evidence that this is a lie?–
You made a false assertion about another Christian here, one that is demonstrably false in posts you have read and responded to, and you have the gall to try to dodge it by switching the subject?
The only theology involved is that you are guilty of false accusation . . . seems to me there’s a commandment about that somewhere.
The origin of the big bang is presently speculative. The subsequent expansion of the universe over billions of years is very substantiated. None of this is “foundational” to geology, radiometric dating, and paleontology, which are all independent, stand on their own, and the broad mainstream understanding is overwhelmingly evidenced. There is consilience to the various disciplines of science relating to the past, but that does not mean adherence or dependence on a model.
If it were me, I wouldn’t be so excited about a paper that either demonstrates some remagnetization possibly occurred in a certain geographical area in 100-300 million years old rocks or the rates were a few centimeters per year faster.
Right, you can just pull a Russ Humphreys and draw some squiggles on a graph and pretend this explains the data… Because the Bible doesn’t say otherwise:
If we take fair measurements and honest weights seriously, then we can know for a fact the continents most certainly did not move thousands of kilometers in a single year. We are talking rates of just centimeters per year and the paper you cited adds to the body of research that supports that idea.
You’ve already yada yada’d about that before, but it still does not negate the fact that universal physical constants do not change spontaneously and wily-nily to fit the obsessive needs of YECism’s silly science. And why couldn’t it be referring to the fixed laws of heaven and earth? Oh, no good reason except that it belies you.
Especially given that some are suggesting that the net energy of the universe is actually zero . . . .
which – to wax theistic – could imply that God just did a little cosmic arithmetic and made it manifest.
He keeps talking like science is a religion!
Which he also gets wrong: Genesis 1 is not foundational to the Gospel, the foundational relationship is the other way around: the Incarnation is the foundation of everything else.
There is a tendency for apologists and evangelists in general, and young earthists in particular, to view the scientific literature as if they were on some sort of “ammunition gathering exercise.” I say “ammunition gathering exercise” here because that was the exact phrase that used to go through my mind when I was at university cycling to lectures in the formation of stars and galaxies course that I took in my final year for the purpose.
The problem with this approach is that it gets you so focused on looking for sound bites and gotchas that you can all too easily lose sight of important details, context, and other factors that experts in the subject are also taking into consideration that cast a completely different light on the subject. It also leads to you blowing things completely out of all proportion, and attaching a significance to the uncertainties and discrepancies in the data that is nowhere near to being justified. This is what appears to be happening in the original post at the start of this thread.
In my case, the one thing I latched onto was one of our lecturers who described cosmology as a discipline where “27\pi^4 is of order 1.” I took this as an admission that cosmologists didn’t care for accurate measurement. It was only several years later that I realised that he hadn’t been talking about accuracy, but about scale. In cosmology, the distances and timescales are so humungous that in some contexts, the ratio between 27\pi^4 and 1 pales into insignificance. There’s no fudging or dishonesty involved in it whatsoever.
When I got into the exam room at the end of the course, I found that I couldn’t remember a thing I’d been taught. My mind went totally blank and I spent most of the next three hours in near total confusion. I ended up getting only 29% on that paper—the lowest score I’ve ever had on any exam paper, anywhere. It was a painful lesson that if you approach your science degree as if you were on some sort of ammunition gathering exercise, you will just end up making a complete mess of things.
The most effective way to rid someone of this irresponsible approach to science is to put them in a science-based job of some nature or another. One where they have to take what they learned at university and put it into practice in situations where they are held responsible for the outcome. You may have to keep them on a minimum wage and micromanage them for a while until they come to their senses, but it’s very difficult to continue viewing science as something “secular” that is not to be trusted once you’ve had to face the consequences of not taking it seriously.
Given that the account indicates that Noah didn’t get carbonized and turned into plasma, yes.
Based on this paper: How Fast Can the Ground Really Move? (dtic.mil) those speeds are high enough to produce primarily plastic collisions. Which would make plate tectonics start acting really weird, but is irrelevant given that the energy of friction (coefficient of friction x mass x gravity x distance) is 1.02 x 10^28 J. Given the time involved, that’s 6.5 x 10^20 W. Which, given earth’s mass would heat the earth at about 0.025 K/s. That means that the Earth’s crust will melt in 20 hours, and the earth will end up glowing a dull red at 2200 K. So, pretty much the entire earth would be molten (most second- and third-row transition metals along with carbon would still be solid), and the oceans and atmosphere (and life) would be long gone.