Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 96 (8831 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-22-2018 12:30 PM
257 online now:
Capt Stormfield, Dr Adequate, DrJones*, xongsmith (4 members, 253 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeepaManjusha
Post Volume:
Total: 830,372 Year: 5,195/29,783 Month: 1,127/1,467 Week: 13/311 Day: 13/51 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Heat Calculations for Post-Flood Plate Movements
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 1858 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006

Message 1 of 36 (361768)
11-05-2006 2:13 AM

So I'm arguing aganist a particularly ignorant creationist who believes that moutains (such as Everest) were created after the flood (therefore removing the ridiculous amount of needed water).

However, what he either doesn't understand or chooses to ignore is that compacting Everest into 6,000 or so years would require ridiculous plate movements.

I've calculated from sea level that plate movement would need to be around 5 (60 inches) feet a year to raise Everest to its current height over 6,000 years.

What I don't have down is the corrolating heat from such plate movement. Plates as we know move about a inch a year the mantle is estimed to be around 1120 C. So it would seem logical to me that a increase in plate movement requires a increase in mantle temperature. How much temperature increase would be required for a increase from 1 inch to 60 inches in plate movement in the mantle?

I've done a rough 1 inch = 1120 and 60 inch = x but that seems like a bad estimate given that the temperature is something like 66,200 C.

Can anyone help me out here?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Coragyps, posted 11-05-2006 10:43 AM obvious Child has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-08-2006 3:09 PM obvious Child has responded

obvious Child
Member (Idle past 1858 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006

Message 6 of 36 (362788)
11-09-2006 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Tranquility Base
11-08-2006 3:09 PM

Besides the fact that anglagard proved runaway subduction is a load of crap, Baumgarder himself has admitted his argument doesn't work without miracles.

Baumgarder's theory still does not work without miracles, as Baumgardner himself admitted (Baumgardner 1990a, 1990b). The thermal diffusivity of the earth would have to increase ten thousandfold to get the subduction rates proposed, and something would have to cause the advance and retreat of the magma bubble (Matsumura 1997). Miracles would also have been necessary to cool the new ocean floor and to raise sedimentary mountains in months rather than in the millions of years it would ordinarily take.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-08-2006 3:09 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-09-2006 7:12 AM obvious Child has responded

obvious Child
Member (Idle past 1858 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006

Message 34 of 36 (363237)
11-11-2006 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Tranquility Base
11-09-2006 7:12 AM

Then your whole model fails as it requires such rates to produce the moutains in a post flood world. This leads me to believe you do not understand the concepts here. Without rate, the moutains cannot form in such time periods. With that rate, massive heat is produced, enough to vaporize the oceans and quite possibily melt the crust into a sea of lava.

How do you deal with the fact that the author of runaway subduction model has admitted his theory does not work without miracles?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-09-2006 7:12 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018