Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Flood = many coincidences
Architect-426
Member (Idle past 4622 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 20 of 445 (491032)
12-11-2008 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Peg
12-09-2008 3:12 AM


Re: The ocean basins = huge evidence.
Hi Peg,
You bring up a good point about these sea mounts as Flood evidence. It has been recorded some of these mounts rise and fall quickly as in the example of Graham Island in the Med (rose and fell within only a few months), Surtsey, several islands in the Alutian chain, etc. Of course there is abundant sea life living over the ones that sit just blow sea level.
Also there are several huge submarine calderas (collapsed volcanoes) all over the place. These are the really ”bad boys’, when they blew during the flood land went down, in huge masses. Remember in Genesis ch1 the Word says God gathered the waters into ”seas’. Before the flood there was obviously more land than water. After the flood, well we obviously now have much more water than land.
These submarine volcanic features are simply wrecked remnants from the global flood. If you study closely the bathymetry of the ocean floor, it is obvious that the ocean basins are basically giant land wrecks and you can clearly see where land was destroyed by mega eruptions, especially in the Pacific.
On the radiometric dating game, here’s a perplexing puzzle for ya:
According to mainstream geology, the oceanic crust is ”only’ 200 million years old or so while the continents are a whopping 3.5 billion years. So, I’m curious what might have been ”holding up’ the oceans for approx. 3.3 billion years before the ocean crust, or 70% of our planet, was ”born’? Anybody got any ideas???
Cheers mate!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Peg, posted 12-09-2008 3:12 AM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-11-2008 2:40 AM Architect-426 has replied
 Message 22 by Percy, posted 12-11-2008 8:50 AM Architect-426 has replied
 Message 23 by roxrkool, posted 12-11-2008 1:11 PM Architect-426 has replied

  
Architect-426
Member (Idle past 4622 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 24 of 445 (491099)
12-11-2008 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Minnemooseus
12-11-2008 2:40 AM


Re: Oceanic crust comes, and oceanic crust goes
quote:
Example please? I personally don't know of such a thing.
You bet, always obliged to provide scientific evidence. As we continue to map and explore the great ocean basins, more and more of these volcanic wrecks will be discovered:
http://www.agu.org/meetings/cc02aabstracts/Yuasa-INV.pdf
IEEE Xplore Login
http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=0804-061
Just a moment...
http://www.agu.org/meetings/cc02aabstracts/Oshima-INV.pdf
NOAA Ocean Explorer: Submarine Ring of Fire 2004
http://www.eri.u-tokyo.ac.jp/fmaeno/kikai/kikaicaldera.html
http://bulletin.geoscienceworld.org/...nt/abstract/113/7/813
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL031222.shtml
404: Page Not Found | Volcano World | Oregon State University
Error Message
Macauley Caldera
Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and Guam | Pacific Islands Benthic Habitat Mapping Center
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/...I_images/maug_10m_caldera.jpg
http://www.drgeorgepc.com/TsunamiVolcanicMechanisms.html
Submarine volcanoes - MBARI
http://www.volcano.si.edu/...4/kermadec/monowai/3303mon1.jpg
list of volcanoes, note the submarine ones:
404: Page Not Found | Volcano World | Oregon State University
http://web.ics.purdue.edu/...is/teaching/gmt/world_volcanoes
quote:
That magic flood can cause anything, can't it?
No magic needed. The scientific evidence is everywhere along with known scientific geophysical mechanisms observed and in place in order to make such a catastrophic event occur.
quote:
That's because the oceanic crust is continuously being created new at mid-ocean spreading centers and is also continuously being lost as it is subducted underneath the continents.
Obviously you (and countless others) have taken this theory as the ”geological gospel model’. I’ve done my due diligence on this model, from both sides of the coin. I even approached it from an ”unbiased’ position believe it or not. It wasn’t until I thoroughly reviewed the information, studied the ”tectonic’ formations (terrestrial and submarine), and volcanism, that I have concluded that it still does not solve all of the geological ”problems’ and virtually does not work.
Examples:
1. It is assumed that the MOR’s spread the ocean floor via volcanism. Well, OK. If we now study volcanic edifices high and low we know that they rise vertically. Sure, they certainly cause horizontal damage to surrounding crust, but their ”spreading’ is due to build-up and viscosity of magmas spreading out over existing strata, not ”pushing it out of the way’ so to speak. When volcanism pushes strata ”out of the way’, it happens vertically. And of course, you need to ”get out of the way’ when that happens.
2. In order for the PT model to work, the spreading and subducting need to be continuous thus causing continuous horizontal movement, in all kinds of directions I must add. Well what we observe is, I’ll put it a bit more politely this time, minimal and even stagnant movement.
3. No volcanism has been recorded (that I know of) at the MOR’s. Only hydrovolcanism or hydrothermal vents (black smokers). There are pillow lavas in areas (on top of parts of the formations, not at the very ridges) which is no surprise since the MOR’s consist of a bunch of fractures that would allow some magma to squeeze through.
4. Volcanic edifices are typically circular and ovoid, especially after they have blown. They occur in linear arrangements of course along fractures, but again, the geomorphology of terrestrial and submarine volcanic edifices do not come close to being similar to the geomorphology of the MOR’s. Furthermore, when volcanism occurs over a long fracture, we get flood basalt such as the Snake River basin and the Deccan Traps. Again, volcanism spreads new rock out over existing strada, and can be thousands of feet thick. Of course when this actually did happen at the MOR’s, we ended up with new land; Iceland, ON TOP OF the ocean crust.
5. It was first assumed that at subduction zones it was the friction causing the melt for volcanism. Well we know there’s not enough of that occurring obviously, now volcanologists ”need’ subduction zones to provide the dissolved water in the magmas from the ”wet’ sediments. Problem is the sediments, if ”slab pull’ were to actually occur, would be ”scraped’ like drywall mud off a knife and then piled up in the basins. Now we have 2 more problems: we now have a ”dry’ basaltic crust being pulled in (not much water in those) and ”piling’ of sediments in the trenches. This is not observed either.
6. Subduction zones transition into continental shelves as well as simply ending. This is evident in the S. American continent and the Aleutians.
7. The MOR’s have very small seismic events. Sure there is pressure and movement, but if real ”spreading’ were occurring, we’d have much larger ”trimmer’s if not major seismic events. Not happening.
8. Basalt is crumbly, very crumbly. In fact if you ”zoom out’ and look at the ocean crust and the continents from space and consider this ”mass movement’, well these great masses at a much larger scale simply become a pile of dust. In other words, scientists do not consider scaling laws in the theory. When you push a giant sand pile, it falls apart. If continents moves in great mass, they’d fall apart, even if ever so slow.
9. Of course other problematic examples pointed out from your own peers that seem to be totally ignored.
10. It just looks better to have 10 reasons than 9...
Those major submarine geological features are the result of other major geophysical events. You brought up a good example of the disaster at Bikini. Nuclear ballistics has made great advancements for volcanology. This is how the base surge phenomena of major eruptions was confirmed. Since major volcanic eruptions can dwarf nuclear explosions, maybe we should study ballistics a bit more closely.
quote:
The maximum elapsed time that has been found for that mid-ocean ridge to subduction zone trip is your 200 million years.
If this were the case then crust at continental margins should be the oldest, while crust right at the MOR’s should be, well relatively brand new. Correct?
In addition, the MOR’s where ”ocean floor production’ occurs is on the Atlantic side, while most ”subduction’ occurs in the Pacific (MOR’s in the Pacific are minimal, sporadic, and not continuous and appear to be just a bunch of faults), so with this fact it would be reasonable to conclude that the Pacific crust would be much, much older (closer to billions of years old like the continents) than the Atlantic crust. This is not the case and thus we have a huge time gap to fill and very old continents to cross. Of course with these huge timeframes, anything can happen, as goes mainstream geological ”logic’.
Edited by ARCHITECT-426, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : Shorten long link.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added a bunch of blank lines to make things more readable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-11-2008 2:40 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Coyote, posted 12-11-2008 6:59 PM Architect-426 has not replied
 Message 30 by Percy, posted 12-11-2008 8:06 PM Architect-426 has not replied

  
Architect-426
Member (Idle past 4622 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 25 of 445 (491101)
12-11-2008 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Percy
12-11-2008 8:50 AM


Re: The ocean basins = huge evidence.
Percy you know what can happen when you assume, you can make everyone look like a bunch of donkeys. What I find very interesting and typical with evolutionists is that when scientific Flood evidence along with blatant problems with currently accepted scientific theories are presented from others, they are immediately rejected. No one takes the time to say “hmm, you’ve got a point, but here is how we understand this", or to simply admit that the current accepted theories have flaws. Recognizing these flaws and working to resolve them can make science progress. We do it all the time in my profession. Here’s the other thing, you really don’t know what I or others know do you? So please stop making assumptions.
The reason I am confident of this huge geological paradox, is the fact that I AM confident that it IS a huge geological paradox.
If there is ocean crust older than a couple hundred mil, then you guys need to update Wikipedia. And no, I do not get all of my info off the net, but also collect geology books. I like learning exactly how rocks are ”deposited’.
Oceanic crust - Wikipedia
Thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Percy, posted 12-11-2008 8:50 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by bluescat48, posted 12-11-2008 5:08 PM Architect-426 has not replied
 Message 28 by kuresu, posted 12-11-2008 5:09 PM Architect-426 has not replied
 Message 31 by Percy, posted 12-11-2008 8:15 PM Architect-426 has replied

  
Architect-426
Member (Idle past 4622 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 26 of 445 (491102)
12-11-2008 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by roxrkool
12-11-2008 1:11 PM


Re: The ocean basins = huge evidence.
Hey Roxrkool, please see my post above.
If I still designed buildings the way I did 20 years ago, I would not be making much progress would I?
And NO, I stay away from Arch forums! I get enough criticism from the general public, my clients and my peers. All I can do is plant some trees to try to hide my mistakes! Seriously perhaps this is the root of the problem. I am able to take criticism and certainly try and gain from it. Perhaps geologists along with other scientists could do the same, do you think?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by roxrkool, posted 12-11-2008 1:11 PM roxrkool has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2008 8:25 PM Architect-426 has replied

  
Architect-426
Member (Idle past 4622 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 36 of 445 (491183)
12-12-2008 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Percy
12-11-2008 8:15 PM


Re: The ocean basins = huge evidence.
Hey Percy, no I do 'understand' the system....'clearly'. But keep in mind, this is a theory, and as a rule should only be discussed on theoretical terms. But somehow, it has cleverly 'moved' itself over into the factual category despite all of it's inherent problems. Probing deep into the past is very risky business.
quote:
No one was trying to tell you there's ocean crust older than a couple hundred million years.
Then I need to throw out ALL of my current Geology literature! Will you please buy me a 'current' book for Christmas?
If there is ocean crust billions of years old, then it did not have time to 'move' as the model suggests. How do you intertwine that with the PT model?
quote:
You express great confidence that there is a great geological paradox while displaying a profound ignorance of geology. How can you detect a paradox in something you don't even understand? All I can say is that this is very entertaining.
Good! I like entertainment too. Here is some more for everyone...
Let’s run through a little ”scientific’ scenario of the model to see how it ”plates out’:
Let’s pick a spot in the mid-ocean ridge (MOR), oh say between N. America and Africa. The MOR gives ”birth’ to new ocean crust. Lets now give the MOR and new name; MOM, since it gives birth to ocean crust.
OK, after years of hard labor MOM just gave birth to twins, they then slowly ”leave the nest’, one heads east and one heads west .
Their ”spreading’ rate is, lets pick the upper average of 4” per year (the fastest ones, pedal to the metal, are burning rubber at 160mm/yr or 6.2992”/yr) . are you clear?
After 200ma they make a journey of 12,626 miles, or roughly halfway across the globe and meet in central Australia .
“Hello sis, I have not seen you in a few years. What are you doing here?”
“I’m looking for the subduction bin mate, is it anywhere near?”
“You’ll have to head north of here, right around Sumatra. Now steer clear of those continents and all the volcanoes my dear.”
“I need to hurry because my time is running out, I need to speed up in order to get to that subsuction spout.”
“That’s not how it works Arch! They pushed the continents apart! . . . . ”
The fact remains: the ocean crust, or 70% of our planet, is 3.2 billion years younger than the continents. What is wrong with this picture?
“Oh NO!!! Could it really be? Radiometric dating is an utter foe . .now is see . .clearly . ..it does not work . .but let’s keep it between you and me . . ”
As you can see, it’s all GeoFantasy.
Edited by ARCHITECT-426, : left out a word..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Percy, posted 12-11-2008 8:15 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Coragyps, posted 12-12-2008 12:28 PM Architect-426 has replied
 Message 38 by Coyote, posted 12-12-2008 12:34 PM Architect-426 has replied
 Message 47 by Percy, posted 12-12-2008 2:28 PM Architect-426 has replied

  
Architect-426
Member (Idle past 4622 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 39 of 445 (491190)
12-12-2008 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by RAZD
12-11-2008 8:25 PM


Re: The ocean basins = huge evidence.
Hey Razd, are you going to make me some brownies for Christmas?
quote:
WIth due apologies to Frank Lloyd Wright eh?
Many! But lets stick to geology for this forum. We can discuss Franky elsewhere.
quote:
For plate tectonics. It can even be measured!
Yes! Even with a micrometer! We use these to measure concrete crack movement in old buildings...just in case...we need to add a brace.
I don't argue movement. Goodness, I'd certainly hope there is movement, but what I was hoping to see is MORE movement! Not a few MM here and there.
Plate Tectonics is a giant misnomer. It literally means "plate builder". What builds? Movement of the plates. How fast? Ahh, well, lets change the subject...Rifting, faulting, shifting, absolutely. But usually when that takes place land is destroyed, not 'built'.
Please make me the brownies with the big chocolate chunks. Thanks!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2008 8:25 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Architect-426
Member (Idle past 4622 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 40 of 445 (491191)
12-12-2008 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Coyote
12-12-2008 12:34 PM


Re: Date of the flood
I have no idea. Biblical scholars even argue about this. I've seen dates as far back as 5000BC to around 2300BC. I'd say closer to the 3000-2300BC range makes more since.
What concerns you with the exact date please?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Coyote, posted 12-12-2008 12:34 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Coyote, posted 12-12-2008 1:48 PM Architect-426 has replied

  
Architect-426
Member (Idle past 4622 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 42 of 445 (491195)
12-12-2008 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Coragyps
12-12-2008 12:28 PM


Re: The ocean basins = huge evidence.
I try to stay away from the TV...unless there is a good ballgame on.
I have not left out 'subduction'. I'm not convinced that those big trenches are 'subduction' zones. Where are the ones in the Tyrrhenian Sea?
None there, more volcanic edifices on the sea floor, yet Visuvio and Etna are 'subduction' edifices. Same with the Cascades, and as you know the adjacent ocean there is a made up of a bunch of canyons and more volcanoes such as Axial Seamount. Where is the subduction bin? Yet geology literature say St Helens is a 'subduction' edifice. More examples of how disconnected the whole PT theory becomes.
Those trenches are something else.
Edited by ARCHITECT-426, : spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Coragyps, posted 12-12-2008 12:28 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by roxrkool, posted 12-12-2008 2:02 PM Architect-426 has not replied

  
Architect-426
Member (Idle past 4622 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 43 of 445 (491196)
12-12-2008 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by JonF
12-12-2008 12:55 PM


Re: The ocean basins = huge evidence.
Yes, I see that, and have studied many others. But again that does not prove 'slab pull' as subduction requires. What we do know is that seismic activity takes place primarily in faults. This proves that there is an angled fault. Now take that angle and keep going until you get below the closest volcanic edifice (you can apply this at several subduction zones), it gets too deep, or the volcanic edifice is too far away horizontally! So now we should back up and ask "what made the crack". Go back and study nuclear ballistics, as the earth tends to blow up from time to time. Just perhaps large mega-blasts, or better yet a series of them, initially caused the cracks!
Yes! These are called 'ring faults' and they occur around major volcanic calderas.
OK, I'm having fun, but I need to run. I've got some Xmas shopping to do. Cheers everyone.
Edited by ARCHITECT-426, : No reason given.
Edited by ARCHITECT-426, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by JonF, posted 12-12-2008 12:55 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by roxrkool, posted 12-12-2008 2:14 PM Architect-426 has not replied

  
Architect-426
Member (Idle past 4622 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 72 of 445 (491467)
12-16-2008 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Coyote
12-12-2008 1:48 PM


Re: Date of the flood
quote:
pinning down an approximate date, can you show evidence within this time period that may be attributed to the global flood?
Hi Coyote, I see your point about pinning down the exact date. Since this thread is somewhat ”open’ I guess it will be OK for me to lay down my thoughts and observations on this topic.
As you know what we all are doing is conducting forensics; geological, archeological, ancestral, etc. Of course most of this will be open to interpretation. What I know, and what science cannot argue with, is the fact of the great Mesopotamian Urban Explosion. We have cities like Nineveh (modern day Mosul) Caleh, Uruk, Babylon etc. that were without question built by the descendants of Noah. These cities are profound along with the kingdoms of Assur and Babylon as well as the surrounding kingdoms of the Fertile Crescent including Canaan (modern Palestine), Egypt (Mizraim), the Cushites, etc. This is where archaeology, history and ancestry all match what is written in Scripture. No coincidences, no phony beloney, but real scientific/physical evidence that is utterly profound.
The fact is that there is no ”continual’ evidence of civilization for over 10k years. If you are finding bits and pieces of the historical past, the interpretation will have a greater degree of error. But when you have cities, kingdoms, history and a huge ancestral tree as your proof, well it becomes more difficult for ”non-believers’ of the Great Flood to reason this evidence away. At this point it merely becomes an individual choice rather than a scientific ”fact’, and God clearly says ”Choose’.
From personal experience working on historical buildings, I have worked on may restoration projects where we have no idea of the exact date of construction because all of the documentation has been lost! I can come close, say within 5-10% of a building built 100 years ago. Now if we take structures that were built a few thousand years ago, again the margin of error becomes even greater and is thus left to interpretation. Therefore dating such edifices or even settlements becomes ”sketchy’ at best.
Again, this is what I know:
1. Mankind is fallible (no need to elaborate). God is Holy.
2. The Flood completely erased life on earth save 8 souls.
3. The post flood settlement of the Fertile Crescent cannot be argued.
4. Any ”evidence’ of continued civilization before the Flood is an interpretation and will be ”sketchy’ at best. Any such claims are merely one’s or a group of individuals who simply wish the Scriptures were not true. The only ”known’ continuously occupied settlement is Jericho, and you will note that the ”older’ Jericho is buried deep.
5. The earth is a ”wreck’. If you have studied closely its features this is a simple observation. In spite of it being ”wrecked’, it is still utterly awesome!
6. Geology and especially ”historical’ geology has done nothing but send out utter confusion to the general public. Fact is you cannot ”date’ a rock, they don’t have clocks (even though scientists claim so). Furthermore, radiometric ”dating’ is not possible on metamorphic rock as it is ”contaminated’, and these rocks are where the fossilized remains of earlier life are contained. So the big irony is . .the Flood actually started this grand cluster-duck of confusion amongst earth scientists!
7. Any claims that life ”began’ in Ethiopia is ill conceived. If you study the geomorphology of this country you will notice it is an utter death trap disaster zone! You have every volcanic edifice under the sun along with a giant rift zone. Anything that was grunting, belching or scratching its back side was utterly vaporized by a volcanic event or the earth swallowed them up!
8. Life did not begin in a volcano, it’s too dang hot!
9. I agree with the Cambrian Explosion, everything sure enough did EXPLODE during the Flood!
10. When you consider, well, all things to consider, the Flood makes perfect logical sense.
If Biblical scholars say the Flood occurred around such and such date, I cannot argue that. All of the evidence is there to support it.
Thanks
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added a bunch of blank lines.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Coyote, posted 12-12-2008 1:48 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by DrJones*, posted 12-16-2008 3:37 PM Architect-426 has not replied
 Message 77 by Coyote, posted 12-16-2008 4:32 PM Architect-426 has not replied
 Message 82 by Rrhain, posted 12-17-2008 1:06 AM Architect-426 has replied
 Message 85 by JonF, posted 12-17-2008 7:29 AM Architect-426 has not replied

  
Architect-426
Member (Idle past 4622 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 73 of 445 (491468)
12-16-2008 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Percy
12-12-2008 2:28 PM


Re: The ocean crust - it's a great big bust!
Hi Percy,
quote:
I don't know how you keep going wrong, but once again, no one was telling you there are ocean basins older than around a couple hundred million years. No one was telling you there are ocean basins billions of years old.
We’re obviously going around in circles here. Maybe no one here in this forum is telling me that the ocean crust is ”only’ 200ma, I did not say that. What I am saying is that major scientific/geological publications are telling me (and the general public) this ”fact’. I counted 6 science/geology books that I have that state this (along with several web sites). Rather than list those I thought it would be best to include this link to a map made by none other than NOAA, National Geophysical Data Center Marine Geology and Geophysics Division that shows these relative ”ages’ of the oceanic lithosphere or crust. You will note that the majority of the ocean crust is very ”youthful’.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/...ld/2008_age_of_oceans_plates.pdf
quote:
Your passages of glib nonsense reveal that although you're able to use terms like plate tectonics and subduction and oceanic ridges, you don't understand the associated geologic processes.
And yes, I do understand the concept laid out by Moose (heck, it’s in every piece geology literature out there and the theory has turned into ”geo one-”o’-one’): MOM births ocean crust, crust gets on a ”conveyor’ belt like a Model T, takes a bumpy joy ride for roughly 200ma (luckily after it leaves the ridge zones the pavement smoothes out), then crashes into a subduction ditch or into a ”scrap yard’ to later get, well ”rebirthed’. Simple. Great concept. But! It does not work . .
Just a few observations:
1. You will note on the map that ocean crust is ”bumping’ into quite a bit of continental mass, especially along the Atlantic, Indian Ocean, Arctic, etc., and.. get off the phone because there’s no subduction zone! What’s up doc? We’ve got lots of youthful ocean crust bumping up against a bunch of geriatric rock!
2. You will also notice that S. America and Africa are getting ”squeezed’ by MOM’s on both sides. Watch out . those continents just might pop out!
3. The Mediterranean has some ”old’ crust (280ma), but MOM is nowhere to be found! Maybe she met Fabio and skipped town . .(mama mia!)
4. The crust from the west coast of the US of A is getting older as it goes away. So, the crust is ”moving’ west . ..Ah dang it!! That’s supposed to be a susbduction zone! It HAS to go the other way! Hurry up and change it . .
5. The ”age’ of the crust increases from the MOM’s in a linear fashion, due to their time of ”travel’ of course. Pay attention because something broke their steering suspension . .in order to get to a recycling bin they have to turn or spin!
Here is some further entertainment. Lets run another example to ”test’ those subduction bins:
Let’s take a section of the Mariana Trench. It is approximately 25 miles wide at its ”mouth’ and is 6.7 miles deep. So let’s take a 25 mile long section and see just how much oceanic sedimentation buildup will get ”scraped’ off over time as the slab is ”pulled’ down into the abyss:
” The volume of this 25mi x 25mi V-shaped section is roughly 2094 cubic miles.
” From our earlier example which calculated the ”average’ speed of ”crust coasting’ after a section leaves MOM, we will use the distance of 12,626 miles.
” Average depth of ocean sedimentation is .4 miles, and of course due to the enormous pressure it will stay ”glued’ to the basalty crust thus riding along the lengthy journey.
” After 200ma, 126,260 cubic miles of sediments would have been ”transported’ into the bin. Thus, after filling Mrs. Mariana once, we have 124,166 cubic miles of material ”buildup’ left over.
” If we stacked this material directly over this 25mi x 25mi section, we would end up with a ”ocean sedimentation’ mega-highrise that is 200 miles tall or 105,600 storeys!!! Now I will be pre-selling some of the penthouse units, the floor plans are bright and open and the views of the South Pacific will be terrific!
Silly? Absolutely . .
I will repeat, with 100% confidence; the ocean crust, or 70% of the face of Gods green, watery planet, is 3.2 billion years younger than the continents. (give or take a few mil). Case closed.
Suggestion: gather all the earth scientists together and have a big BBQ. Invite Barry Manilow for some entertainment. Throw some basalt, granite and gneiss on the pick-nick table and ”hash out’ just how old those rocks are. When everyone gets done, then perhaps they can publish some information that is actually plausible instead of laughable, so that people like me won’t make an utter ”laughing stock’ out of the plate tectonic THE-O-RY.
Thanks Percy.
Edited by ARCHITECT-426, : changed heading
Edited by ARCHITECT-426, : can't spel
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added a bunch of blank lines.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Percy, posted 12-12-2008 2:28 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2008 3:07 PM Architect-426 has replied
 Message 78 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-16-2008 11:01 PM Architect-426 has not replied
 Message 87 by Percy, posted 12-17-2008 8:41 AM Architect-426 has not replied
 Message 111 by Jazzns, posted 12-22-2008 4:11 PM Architect-426 has not replied

  
Architect-426
Member (Idle past 4622 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 119 of 445 (492865)
01-03-2009 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by New Cat's Eye
12-16-2008 3:07 PM


Re: The ocean crust - it's a great big bust!
Hello Catholic Scientist and Happy New Year.
quote:
So where are these claims that the ocean crust is more than a couple hundred million years old?
You’re missing my whole point here. Weather the ocean crust is 100, 200 or 300+ million years old is not the issue I am revealing. The ”fact’ is that there is a 3+ billion year difference in age of the ocean crust vs. the continents.
quote:
There's clearly a subduction zone on the west coast of S. America.
There is? Interesting, it looks like a great big ditch to me! Where is all of the sediment buildup? There would be literally piles of . .hundreds of miles high again if you stacked it vertically over these ”millions’ of years. And look closely, this ”zone’ clearly changes shape as you go north and south doesn’t it? And there’s still a bunch of volcanoes in the western Americas, all over the place, and far removed from any subduction zones.
Take a ”looksea’ at Africa in your link. It’s surrounded by MOR’s (or MOM’s) but NO subsuction cracks! Where is all of the ”youthful’ crust going to go to get ”recycled’? Ditto between Antarctica and Africa as well as Australia.
Again, in your link take a closer look at the Filipino plate subduction zones. Interesting, it’s surrounded! Where are the MOR’s?
Furthermore, where are all of the MOM’s for the Pacific? (Oh, there’s a little strand of them west of southern Chile) . . almost 1/3rd of the face of the planet (ie the Great Pacific Blue) is a great big giant orphan!!!
Take a closer look at the Pacific Ocean and you see a ton of volcanic islands, but no MOR’s to make new crust. Why is this? The crust had to be created somewhere to support the plate tectonic theory, but I don’t see any, or enough of them to create this huge mass of ocean floor. Just a bunch of volcanic edifices.
Subduction as well as ”sea floor spreading’ is assumed based on what scientists ”think’ they are seeing and also what they truly ”want’ to see to support the PT theory. They do not take the time to explore other mega events that could have created these oceanic ditches and ridges. They like the plate tectonic theory too much and therefore can’t let go of it due to its dominance in science. Again it does sound kinda cool and has therefore become the ”knee jerk’ solution to all geological features.
quote:
Its just old sea floor sitting there.
Yes! That’s right! It’s just ”sitting there’! Thank you! . . Oh wait, there is some movement . . ~2.5 centimeters per anno . .. hilarious.
quote:
In the link above, there is a lack of a subduction zone on the middle section of the west coast of the US.
Well, then all the volcanologists need to change their publications as all of the volcanic edifices in the Cascades are stated as being “continental margin” volcanoes, and then they show the ”classic’ subduction diagram to explain their formation. And of course as we take a look at the Pacific blue bottom in this local we see a series of canyons, faults, and more volcanoes . . no subduction bin. So what gives?
Furthermore, how in the heck does ”thin’ ocean crust subduct below a ”thick’ continental crust? Huh???
Why don’t the continents subduct? Too thick? Not worth as much ransom perhaps? The only ”subducting’ going on in the world is by the Mafia.
quote:
Whoopty do. Nobody is saying otherwise
Well the ”whoopty’ is the ”fact’ of the 3+ billion year age difference, and the ”do’ is, given this ”geological fact’, this now forces science to change gears and go into science fiction overdrive with even deeper fictional theory like continents ”deciding’ to ”break apart’ and ”floating’ around the globe crashing and bashing into each other in dire efforts to explain this huge paradox.
Remember, science must be 1) observable 2) testable and 3) repeatable. Otherwise, it is theory and ONLY theory and therefore MUST remain and be dealt with strictly on a theoretical basis. Moving theory into the fact category is very risky business as well as a grave scientific sin, and it has been committed over and over in the field of earth science. You’re an engineer so you know your work must be bullet proof or else your career is on the line. Bridges and buildings are held up by good design, sound engineering, and the tested science that backs it. Geologists and earth scientists have no accountability so they can throw out whatever theory and million-billion this and that and have absolutely NO repercussions regarding their assumptions that are based on even more assumptions, and then write a book and teach college. Gee wiz its time for change. We simply cannot keep letting outlandish earth science theories muddy up the definition of true science.
Land goes UP and land comes DOWN. Simple. And yes there is some horizontal shifting at major faults . ..but no drifting, and the ocean crust does not get sucked up like a big giant Slurpee.
Again, scientists prefer to totally ignore observed and documented earth processes of how land is formed and destroyed via volcanism in preference over a poorly backed theory. This is absurd folks. Scientists have ”played’ around with plate tectonics long enough.
quote:
The oceans weren't "held up".
Of course not. This was simply my way of opening up the conversation thus exposing this huge scientific paradox. And it worked . ..Now everyone is booking down the science fiction autobahn wide open showing Looney Tune cartoons of more wacky theory.
quote:
You have not exposed any problem with current theory.
Run the numbers for yourself and take a closer look at all of the geographical details. The plate tectonic theory utterly falls apart like a giant jig saw puzzle turned upside down. Now science has a great big ”non tectonic’ mess to clean up . . good luck.
Challenge:
If you guys are going to prove the play tectonic theory to a fussy, cranky old Architect, then please provide the following:
” Sound, tested experiments that subduction actually occurs. Preferably from Los Alamos National Laboratories or Oakridge. Real experiments please.
” Sound, tested experiments that the sea floor is actually spreading at the MOR’s. Again, please provide experimental data from a national laboratory. Annual millimeter measurement is negligible. (These features have eluded scientists for so long it’s not even funny. I have proved how these formations occurred in my own shop, and I can repeat it, over and over again.)
” Sound, tested, documented and observed data that continental drift occurred, or is still occurring. Real experiments, no cartoons. Annual centimeter measurement is negligible. Again, national laboratories please.
I will look forward to seeing some real scientific proof. If I am not convinced, then I will stamp the submitted information with a stamp I have in my office that we use for submitted data from GC’s and suppliers in order to prove to me that their materials and products meet my strict specifications. It simply says REJECTED-RESUBMIT.
And please, come back to me with documented science and not the 'typical' evolutionist responses that can only make personal jabs. Jab the science.
Thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2008 3:07 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Coyote, posted 01-03-2009 11:48 AM Architect-426 has not replied
 Message 121 by kuresu, posted 01-03-2009 12:05 PM Architect-426 has replied
 Message 122 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2009 1:35 PM Architect-426 has replied

  
Architect-426
Member (Idle past 4622 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 129 of 445 (494707)
01-17-2009 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Rrhain
12-17-2008 1:06 AM


KT and the Boundary Band: The giant-volcanic T-rex obituary, man!
If there were a global flood, there would be a flood layer in the geologic column akin to the iridium layer at the K-T boundary:
This is another grand example of conjured up geo-fantasy that is easily explained with volcanism. These layers that are supposedly marking the so called ”boundary’ between the Crusty and Tatar Sauce periods, simply represent changes in eruption dynamics.(Crustaceous and Tertiary to be ”politically’ correct, but since the geological ”time clock’ is utter fantasy, I borrowed these new terms from SpongeBob as most people here are into cartoons) . . The iridium found represents a deeper eruption column in a massive event. Once all of this material is ”deposited’, then thermal dynamics takes over. Due to the extreme heat, various pressures and chemical makeup, the stratification phenomenon takes over creating these rock layers as they solidify.
The irony of this volcanic phenomena is HUGE:
” All of these layers of rocks have been misinterpreted by scientists as representing different ”events’ over a huge time span when actually these various rocks were volcanically ”deposited’ in a single event only spanning a few hours, days or weeks or perhaps a year of a mega disastrous event. (BTW a pyroclasic flow as well as a huge lahar will solidify into ”sedimentary’ rock and can thus be misinterpreted as a possible ”ancient sea’, aren’t those volcanoes funny).
” The various rocks in these layers were ”categorized’ by scientists first, then conveniently placed into their preconceived ”time column’, thus we get results that are far from the truth. During this whole time, earth scientists have been doing things backwards; categorizing and attempting to ”date’ rocks rather than exploring the overall formations and looking at the big picture! (Grand Canyon is a prime example)
” This particular example of the so called K-T Boundary in your post is most likely New Mexico or Colorado, and thus you can easily identify the edifice or group of edifices that were responsible for the ”deposition’ of all this material . ..no meteor impact needed.
” Dinosaurs in the Midwest died by and are buried in volcanic ash and are bones, not necessarily fossils. Moreover, they usually are not found very deep, in fact near the surface! And they died 65 million years ago? HA! Hardly. A few thousand years at best, and most likely a few hundred years AFTER the Flood . . ..After 65 million years the bones would be in the sea (as well as the entire continent would erode away . ..but plate tectonics would push them back up at 4cm/year . .so everything would be OK).
“Yes children, dinosaurs died a long time ago, and 65 million years is just scientific fantasy and an utter foe. They didn’t have time to put on their Boogie Shoe, because they were running for their life, when the giant volcanoes blew.”

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Rrhain, posted 12-17-2008 1:06 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by lyx2no, posted 01-17-2009 11:16 PM Architect-426 has not replied
 Message 132 by Coyote, posted 01-17-2009 11:33 PM Architect-426 has not replied
 Message 141 by bluescat48, posted 01-18-2009 12:55 PM Architect-426 has replied

  
Architect-426
Member (Idle past 4622 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 131 of 445 (494709)
01-17-2009 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by RAZD
01-03-2009 1:35 PM


Re: The ocean crust - it's a great big bust! (or not keeping abreast of reality)
Hi RAZD,
This post is lengthy, so I do apologize. One thing I will say about you my friend is that you do the research and come up with some interesting posts. While you and I may not always agree, I do appreciate the thought put into your responses.
quote:
Not true. The difference between the oldest known land and the ocean floor is on that order of magnitude, but lots of land masses are younger, some much younger.
Then this poses a huge problem with the plate tectonic theory that ties into the continental drift idea (I say idea because as a theory continental drift has no legs whatsoever). The model will have to be reworked with land masses continually rising and falling, rising and falling, rising and falling etc. as it ”coasts’ across the globe. They simply would not survive and would just be crumbled up into the sea, and all we would have is one big ocean.
The Appalachians are old. . elongate belts of folded and thrust faulted marine sedimentary rocks, volcanic rocks and slivers of ancient ocean floor. Strong evidence that these rocks were deformed during plate collision. The birth of the Appalachian ranges, some 480 million years ago, marks the first of several mountain building plate collisions that culminated in the construction of the supercontinent Pangea with the Appalachians near the center.
You were dying to bring up the Appalachians. A few points:
” The idea of the Appalachians being in the center of ”Pangea’ is ludicrous. They were formed in their present locations via volcanism - vertically. If they were formed by the bashing of plates and then shifted across the globe, then their height only represents roughly .03% of the horizontal distance traveled!
” Assuming that one mountain range is ”older’ than another across the globe is based on preconceived ideas based on rock types and assigned “ages”. There are several mountain chains across the globe that share similar geomorphology or ”architecture’ which is evidence that they were formed at the same time with the same forces, including the Appalachians.
” The Appalachians are complex and broken into distinct forms. The folded belts that run from TN to PA were formed via hydrovolcanism. This is easily identified by their elongated and ”molded’ shapes as well as all of the overturning. When this was occurring they became plastic as a result of all of the superheated water issuing from within. And of course, this type of event will yield ”sedimentary’ rock as well as metamorphic as it has been hydrothermally changed and most likely happened under water.
” The ”volcanic’ rocks (essentially they are all a result of volcanism, weather explosive, hydrothermal, effusive or flooded from fissures) are most likely from a series of explosions that occurred while all of this ”orogeny’ was taking place. The Appalachian belt is dotted with strado volcanoes and calderas.
” The Southern Appalachians are different. This is where the mega event took place.
quote:
They mean old by comparison to other land. Note that these mountains are so old that they have significant erosion from their original heights, yet they are less than half a billion years old.
Note that the core rocks are volcanic, but that they pre-date when the sedimentary layers were deposited while the area was an ocean floor:
Man if I could only get a nickel for every time I have heard scientists say that the Appalachians are the ”oldest’ mountains on earth, I would not have to do business with the Mafia.
I agree that they are significantly ”shorter’ than they were before they blew their tops (you obviously have been paying attention to the volcanic part I’ve been preaching . great!) Eroded, hmm I don’t know about that one. I can show you some very steep and interesting topography here that do not show any significant signs of erosion. The lush greenery blanketing the Appalachians have created a ”smoke screen’ for scientists fooling them into thinking that these mountains are badly ”eroded’ . ..they are in fact very badly volcanically wrecked! I can show you huge calderas in the Apps along with resurgent domes/mountains. The damage from the eruption of the Apps extends for hundreds of miles. No survivors, not even a bug.
Moreover, if they are as significantly eroded as scientists say, then where are all of the millions of years of thickness of soil build-up? Its not there! I can show you forested areas growing directly on top of solid rock, and furthermore whenever you begin to excavate these mountains, you hit solid granite within a few feet. Then out comes the dynamite . ..Fact is, if these mountains represent millions upon millions of years of erosion, then my house would be under the sea and I’d have to ride a vaporetto to my office . .. I do love Venice.
From your quoted clip of USGS science fiction that is knee-slapping hilarious and was obviously written by someone who is a big-time Treky:
quote:
about 270 million years ago . .
About 470 million years ago . ..
about 540 million years ago . . .
About 750 million years ago . . . ..
Now get the years right gosh darn it! What’s all this ”about’ stuff? No estimates or assumptions, we NEED and MUST know EXACTLY when all this occurred . ..c’mon, radiometric dating is ”absolute’ . ..and someone that witnessed all of this in the past needs to speak up .
quote:
Curiously the buildup from this subduction is easy to see - the Andes mountains are pushed up (a) by the collision with the sea floor, piling up the sedimentary land on that side, and (b) by the uplift caused by melted sediment piling up under them, some of it coming back out as volcanic lava.
The build up of the Andes, and the high deserts is via mega volcanism; period. And absolutely nothing survived this massive event a few thousand years ago. High plateaus such as this along with the Colorado and Tibetan Plateaus are a result of huge amounts of material issuing from grand fissures. Did you spot the giant calderas?
The canyons sloping down to the sea were formed in 2 ways:
1) massive flood run off
2) mega pyroclasic flows which can carve out canyons in minutes.
By the way if you or I get caught in a pyroclasic flow, our bodies will be vaporized immediately with no trace whatsoever. God said He was going to completely DESTROY life on earth, and volcanoes are quite good at that, along with creating mega tsunamis . ..
quote:
Conditions like these are found deep within the Earth or where tectonic plates meet.
Conditions like these are found in volcanoes and in volcanic fields. Absolutely.
quote:
In a planet which age is calculated in approximately 4,700 million years, the process of Andean Orogenesis started less than 100 million years ago. It had its stage of major development between 40 and 20 million years in the past and it still continues in the present.
Again, please get the dates exact . ..
quote:
Curiously, nature . will continue to behave the way it does, unperturbed by your thoughts.
Instead, what this denial accomplishes is your absolute incapability to explain the sedimentary layers, hundreds of feet thick, at the tops of mountains. With your denial of plate tectonics you have lost any mechanism to lift these layers to their current heights.
And while I write Yellowstone is rumbling, and dozens of other volcanoes are on high alert. Yes, you are absolutely right, the earth will continue doing its volcanic ”thing’, and you, I nor anyone else can do anything about it . .
There is also a huge difference between denial and scrutiny. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. The plate tectonic theory has many weak and even missing links.
Your statement also reinforced exactly what I stated in my previous posts about scientists completely ignoring observed, documented, repeated and even scientifically measured volcanic events in preference to a poorly backed theory. Land masses have risen and fallen in recorded history via volcanism. Surtsey is a good example and has all of the ”aspects’ if you will, of a much ”older’ land formation . ..but it was born in 1963. It even has marine fossils! Now that’s interesting isn’t it? Damn interesting . ..
Sedimentary layers on mountains are easily explained with volcanism, especially volcanic activity occurring while the earth is covered with water. Moreover, remember volcanoes blow out everything, even just a bunch of hot water and when that hot water is mixed with all of the rock fragments that were earlier blown into smithereens by phreatic eruptions, it lithifies and becomes sedimentary rock. Pyroclastic flows also become ”sedimentary’ rock. Same with lahars. After these layers upon layers are ”deposited’ via volcanism and massive waves, they later become uplifted via further volcanism.
Don’t panic, it’s not my fault that the Great Flood was all volcanic!
quote:
The term "mid-ocean" does not mean the ridge has to be in the geometric middle. In fact part of the ridge forms the Sea of Cortez, where the Baja peninsula is gradually moving away from the main part of Mexico and California.
What applies for the Atlantic utterly falls apart in the Pacific. You have subduction zones where there are rift zones as well as MOM’s (where ocean crust is ”birthed’). The theory contradicts itself, over and over. And of course no one tries to ”correct’ it . . ”just sweep it under the rug, no one will notice the details” . ..The Baja peninsula is a wreck, and yes I do agree it is moving along a major fault. Interesting, so ocean crust that is ”created’ in the Sea of Cortez, jumps over or ducks under the Baja to eventually ”drift’ its way further into the Pacific. Now that’s just friggin’ brilliant! I love plate tectonics .
Scientists need to ask the greater question, what power in nature is strong enough to crack the crust?
quote:
So it doesn't even have to be in the ocean to be classified as a "mid-ocean ridge" ... it just needs to be a place where the plates are (and have been actually measured to be) moving apart.
Oh, that’s good, so we can just make things up as we go . .that way we can make geological features ”fit’ into the theory . .I see how it works . ..got it . . This kind of ”reasoning’ is exactly the fallacy of the theory. Also don’t forget, where there are no ”apparent’ plate boundaries, just make something up . ..no one will notice . .
Again, the Pacific crust has to be ”born’ somewhere according to the theory, where this occurs is very blurry . .where are my bifocals . .ah yes, that’s better . ..hmm, no MOM’s . . oopsy daisy!
Take a look at the Arctic Ocean. Everybody ignores that one. Yes there is a ridge but NO subduction zones. The floor has to be ”recycled’ somewhere . .In a book on the ocean basins it concludes that the Arctic “has all features of an old continent that was destroyed . .” Now THAT I can believe! Land was once there but it catastrophically collapsed. No assumptions of stuff drifting around or millions of this and that. Someone examined its features and made a logical conclusion. Now that is how we should approach examining all geological features, not starting with plate tectonics.
Now that I have my bifocals on I can focus better the actual recorded measurements of play tectonic movement . a few cm here and there . oh, there are a few mm’s too . ..I like m&m’s, don’t you?
quote:
Note the age bands on the ocean floors, bands that cannot be explained with your "shifting back and forth" concept.
Ah RAZD, I see a problem . ..YOUR map shows maximum ocean crustal age of roughly 65 MA. The map I referred to by NOAA has the crust ”dated’ at roughly 280 MA (max). OK . .which is it? Can we get a consensus here? Also, nice pastels . ..
Vertical movement is not just a concept (not shifting back and forth), but observed and true.
I know exactly how the mid-ocean ridges were formed and can scientifically prove it with experiments along with known, proven science to even further support my claim. Now that’s no small claim is it? The same goes for those big trenches. Like our hearts, plate tectonics is under attack!
quote:
Strangely, whether you are convinced or not has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the science, it only relates to your personal denial of the evidence, evidence, btw, that has already been submitted in this thread.
Science must be tested to be true, otherwise it is not valid. The only ”evidence’ I see are man made maps/diagrams along with some cartoons. It seems that earth scientists love cartoons because anything can happen, literally anything. I see you are a cartoon fan as well . .
quote:
in my design office . ..
And what is your area of expertise? Cartoon comics? I think you 'work' this forum full time.
quote:
I would rate you "Unqualified: lacks the necessary expertise to accomplish the task" ...
Too late. You will have to break out the wrecking ball. Actually I wouldn’t mind if a couple of them went down. I don’t mind admitting I do things differently now. Science should be able to do the same.
RAZD, I understand that plate tectonics is very precious and dear to your (and many other scientists) heart because it supports the ”age old’ earth theory. Perhaps the reason no one has come back to me with solid evidence (other than cartoon comics and mm measurements) is the fact that it cannot be found. Has anyone checked with Los Alamos to see if a physical experiment (or series of them) has been conducted to test the theory? Nope. I don’t know of any, and this is a serious problem. Again, the herd is being let to the slaughter. Scientists have just accepted it because it looks good and sounds good even though it has not been tested and proven, and is plagued with inherent problems.
I did find this from Los Alamos. I looks like the play-non-tectonic theory needs to be revised (shhh, don’t tell anyone).
Service Unavailable
Well, my stamp is still in my drawer. Why someone has not conducted physical experiments to back the p-t theory is beyond me . .oh yeah, scientist can’t get sued for publishing rubbish.
Thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2009 1:35 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Coragyps, posted 01-17-2009 11:37 PM Architect-426 has replied
 Message 134 by Coyote, posted 01-17-2009 11:39 PM Architect-426 has not replied

  
Architect-426
Member (Idle past 4622 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 135 of 445 (494713)
01-17-2009 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by kuresu
01-03-2009 12:05 PM


Re: Community college I beg your pardon, I thought they taught it in kindergarten!
kuresu, what am I going to do with you?
quote:
The rest of your post? Wow, just, wow. A complete and total lack of understanding of the basic processes behind plate tectonics. Seriously. Sign up for a comm. college course on geology. Do yourself some good.
You remind me of Frampton, back in the day
Oh won’t you show me the plate tectonic way?
Scientist use it to make things sound technical
And then I come along, and turn it into a giant spectacle.
You are unable to show me the plate tectonic money
And therefore I find this fact to be quite funny.
Plate tectonics is a huge scientific joke
You must measure continental movement with a microscope.
You see I contacted Los Alamos as well as Oak Ridge
And they have no experimental data, can you dig?
So there evidently is no real scientific proof
Plate tectonics is nothing but a giant jigsaw goof.
Goes to show you that Scientists can be so very gullible,
As crustal spreading and subduction, are so endearingly lovable.
The truth is these ideas are quite preposterous
Our earth does not move about this way, and now it’s quite hilarious.
“God is in the details”, said Mies van der Rohe
And this is where the theory crumbles apart, and now you know.
So I will decline your community college advice
It took me only five seconds, to see that the theory is just a mental devise.
I can even teach a child that the theory does not work for free
Whose age even happens to be as young as 3.
But the real challenge is convincing the folks, who even hold a PhD.
This too can be done, with an experiment and not just one.
Please thoroughly read my very last post
Don’t glean over my claim, like it was just a ghost.
I can prove that the mid-ocean ridges were formed in a most interesting way
Oh I know that you cannot show me the plate tectonic way.
The proof is quite clever
And many would have thought that it would have been never.
Like driving too fast over a hummock
It will make some scientists sick to their stomach.
They have failed to first check God’s Holy Word
Now plate tectonics will look completely absurd.
“You can’t teach an old dog new tricks”, so goes the saying
Thus changing the way scientists approach things, won’t fly without complaining.
Science will have to start over, throwing out much of what they have been taught
Especially those old theories, which truly are naught.
Plate tectonics does not plate out, it’s all abstract
Now scientists have even a greater problem they must hastily retract.
Radiometric dating with its series of grand assumptions, is the latest rage
While the ocean crust and the continents are separated by ”billions’ of years in age.
Never hide info from your Physician or your Architect
We will find you out, and then you will learn respect.
Because fixing a big problem is painful and costly
Once burned, you will approach things much more cautiously.
You have been mentally conditioned
By nothing but clever science fiction.
Like a herd being led to the slaughter
You may end up begging for just one drop of water.
Because the real danger, lies inside a gigantic rising magma chamber.
As it meets water, thermal energy quickly changes to mechanical, causing the molecules go completely berserk
Destroying and changing the landscape, as H2O then acts like a hyper-active jerk.
New geological formations are due to a reaction that takes place in less than a millisecond
Not in millions of years, as scientists have mistakingly reckoned.
Grandma always said, “your sins will find you out”
When giant volcanoes explode, they behave like a huge water spout.
And nothing survives, beyond even the shadow of a doubt.
They all disappear in pyroclastic flow and hot St. Elmo’s Fire rain
And then there are huge tsunamis to blanket the once dry terrain.
The very proof is right under your nose
On every continent and where the ocean basins repose.
A volcanic explosion can go well beyond nuclear
And you can take that scientific fact to your banker.
Plate tectonics is quickly sinking like a giant stranded oil tanker.
I show the wrecked geography to my friends, and they get quite ticked off
“Why haven’t scientists told us this?” they utter and they scoff.
All I can say is that they continue play with old assumptions all during the day
Along with theoretical puzzles and conjured up time frames, that are wasting away.
While perplexingly classifying fossilized sea shells
Spending even more time coloring world maps, with nice pastels.
But I won’t leave you in total despair
There is real hope, and the price is more than fair.
God shed His grace on a man named Noah
So mankind would survive, and His Son would stamp out the boa.
So in the future take great care in how you reply to ARCHITECT four twenty-six
Because the answer may come from way out of nowhere, and put you in a real fix.
Don’t reply to this post, you’d better let it sit instead
You cannot win a debate with a super-volcano, and with someone who has returned from the dead.
Edited by ARCHITECT-426, : spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by kuresu, posted 01-03-2009 12:05 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by kuresu, posted 01-18-2009 6:43 AM Architect-426 has replied
 Message 147 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-11-2009 3:09 AM Architect-426 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024