The RSS feed is stuck broken You need to actually visit to see new posts

The RSS feed is stuck broken You need to actually visit to see new posts

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 theres 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 thats 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 Barnes 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 theres way more data now). Because such and such and such, but now with zero evidence rather than one point of horrible evidence.

Its rather sad. Its 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. Its 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 theyve accounted for "all" the outputs. And thats 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 doesnt 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 Ill 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 isnt 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. Dont 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, Im 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 Goldschmidts 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 wont even dispute that. Ill 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 havent changed over millions of years. But as mentioned, thats circular reasoning. Those sedimentary rock layers arent actually hundreds of millions of years old - they are only a few thousand years old. As such, all Goldschmidts data really shows is that the salinity of the ocean hasnt 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 dont 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 evolutions 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 youve given here is 2 hypothetical objections."

Tatarize: "Objections arent hypothetical unless youre 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 didnt 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 hasnt changed over time. http://www.clays.org/journal/archive/volume%208/8-1-203.pdf Is worth posting again. Its an older paper but a great read. In fact, the more you read on paleosalinities the more youll realize that such a field exists and its 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 havent changed during a certain period of its 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. Its the fallacy of begging the question, and is fundamentally, logically invalid. You cant 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 hasnt 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 Id simply have to say in response that the ocean salinity levels argument still stands."

Tatarize: "Your paper said it covered everything. It didnt cover what geologists say is responsible."

Then come up with some actual data, evidence, and support, instead of simply whining about it!

Tatarize: "And its 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 thats all youve got, you havent even come close to beginning to counter the information that Ive provided. Youve done nothing to address the actual issues. Youre argument didnt even get out of the starting gate - it fell flat on its face before it could even begin. My previous claim remains valid - the ocean salinity levels argument still stands.


BaseSixForty: "First of all, Im 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 wouldnt 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 thats only because it is a working theory that fits into the philosophical assumptions of naturalism and the Big Bang. I dont 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. Dont 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."

Doesnt sound like a proven fact to me! In fact, it goes so far Id 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 Earths field went screwy during Noahs flood."

Its not "magically supposing", as you so desperately want to believe. Its using multiple evidences from science to postulate a hypothesis. These include the facts that the majority of sedimentary layers were laid down during Noahs flood, and the locations of various magnetic rocks within those layers that show magnetic reversals. Its 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 cant 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, Im 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 dont 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. Theres 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, thats a point of interpretation that you might possibly be able to argue. But to ignore the actual data itself, and to claim it doesnt exists, goes beyond the comprehension of rational thought. From someone who seems to claim to be rational when considering evidence, youre 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 doesnt 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."

Its 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 Noahs 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, youd see that the evidence all fits together naturally.

Tatarize: "Theres rightly zero evidence for this hamfisted speculation. (Something I predicted)."

Thats it - ignore the evidence, then you can claim it doesnt exist, and pat yourself on the back. Well Done!

Tatarize: "At least Barnes had some data, but its 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 its 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 cant 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 thats to say nothing of the quality of the articles presented)"

Tatarize: "Creationist arguments dont change much over time."

The basic underlying facts of creationist arguments dont change, because the true history of the universe doesnt 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 Noahs 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 dont take as long and ignore the fact that we can find sediments that show that same pattern deep under ground (which doesnt 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 its logical fallaciousness.

Tatarize: "Or was volcanic rock also laid down by Noahs flood?"

Yes, which you would know if you ever bothered to read the science you are trying to refute. Its 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 arent the topics we are discussing here. Just because you arent able to speak directly to the issues, that doesnt mean you can just start arguing against something that we arent talking about here. You are trying to associate me with claims that I havent 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, thats pretty good inferential science. In fact, its 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 its not hard to say that, oh the sun is getting more active and therefore if it continues at this rate itll 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 wouldnt agree with them if they did) Stop arguing against points that arent being made here, and stick to the actual points of discussion (Since you seem to have forgotten, Ill remind you: Ocean Salinity Levels and The Earths 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. Its actually the foremost understanding of the Earths 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 youll 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 dont need and bothered to check. Some theories included such elements, we checked to see if they worked. They didnt, 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 thats Earth has all the needed bits for a dynamo. Solid metal core and flowing conductors. Up until about last year we figured the Earths 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 Earths 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 cant. 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 shouldnt 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 cant 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 cant even begin to offer an explanation, since such a theory cant 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 earths magnetic field."

Tatarize: "Yes. There are. In fact theres an actual physical working model. Weve 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."

Lets see it. Dont 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. Its 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 wed find in the Earths 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.

download file now