Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 160 (8167 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-27-2014 4:16 AM
69 online now:
Mr Jack, PaulK, Straggler, Tangle (4 members, 65 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MarkG
Upcoming Birthdays: Raphael
Post Volume:
Total: 742,128 Year: 27,969/28,606 Month: 3,026/2,244 Week: 430/710 Day: 6/134 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
30NextFF
Author Topic:   The Flood = many coincidences
kuresu
Member (Idle past 1775 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 121 of 445 (492868)
01-03-2009 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Architect-426
01-03-2009 11:40 AM


Re: The ocean crust - it's a great big bust!
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


Well, let's see. Dense material sinks. Less dense material floats. Basalt is more dense than granite. Oceanic crust is mostly basaltic. Continental crust is mostly granitic. When they meet, basalt ends up subducting underneath granitic. Mind you, this is a very simplistic explanation, but since you seem to not understand the concept of density . . .

Instead of just spouting things out, you could look up whether your questions have already been answered. Your question is answered in intro to geology courses in universities across the states.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Architect-426, posted 01-03-2009 11:40 AM Architect-426 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Architect-426, posted 01-17-2009 11:41 PM kuresu has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 16133
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 122 of 445 (492870)
01-03-2009 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Architect-426
01-03-2009 11:40 AM


Re: The ocean crust - it's a great big bust! (or not keeping abreast of reality)
Hello ARCHITECT-426

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.

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.

Appalachian Mountains

quote:
The Appalachians are old. A look at rocks exposed in today's Appalachian mountains reveals 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.

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:

quote:
The rocks at the core of the Appalachian Mountains formed more than a billion years ago. At that time,all of the continents were joined together in a single supercontinent surrounded by a single ocean. About 750 million years ago, the crust of the supercontinent began to thin and pull apart. As the crust expanded, a deep basin -- the Ocoee -- formed in what is now the western Carolinas, eastern Tennessee, and northern Georgia. Seawater filled the basin.

Sediments formed by the weathering of surrounding hills were transported by water and deposited in layers on the floor of the basin. Over a long period of time, a great thickness of sediments accumulated. These sediments now form the bedrock of the Great Smoky Mountains. Within these sediments, minerals like pyrite and metals like copper were deposited.

Then, about 540 million years ago, the supercontinent split into pieces that drifted away from each other. Seawater spread into low areas between crustal plates and,in time, formed new oceans. A shallow sea covered most of what is now the United States.

About 470 million years ago, the motion of the crustal plates changed, and the continents began to move toward each other. Eventually, about 270 million years ago, the continents ancestral to North America and Africa collided. Huge masses of rock were pushed west-ward along the margin of North America and piled up to form the mountains that we know as the Appalachians.


And this isn't the youngest land known.

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.

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.

http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/rxmin/rock3.html

quote:
Metamorphic rocks started out as some other type of rock, but have been substantially changed from their original igneous, sedimentary, or earlier metamorphic form. Metamorphic rocks form when rocks are subjected to high heat, high pressure, hot, mineral-rich fluids or, more commonly, some combination of these factors. Conditions like these are found deep within the Earth or where tectonic plates meet.
(color for empHAsis).

And we can look at the age of these mountains too. From Andes Mountain Range - Information:

quote:
The Los Andes Mountains Range is relatively new. 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.
(color again for emPHASis).

That's between 0.04 and 0.02 billion years old. And there is land that is younger still. In fact the real evidence is the wide variation in the age of land in different places on every continent, a range that is over 4 billion years from youngest to oldest.

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.

Curiously, nature is completely unencumbered by your opinion/s, if not oblivious to all of your thoughts, and it 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.

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!!!

Strangely, this amusing incredulity is due is your misunderstanding of the facts. 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-ocean_ridge

quote:
The mid-ocean ridges of the world are connected and form a single global mid-oceanic ridge system that is part of every ocean, making the mid-oceanic ridge system the longest mountain range in the world. The continuous mountain range is 65,000 km (40,400 mi) long and the total length of the system is 80,000 km (49,700 mi)[1].

Click to enlarge

And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Pacific_Rise

quote:
The East Pacific Rise is a mid-oceanic ridge, a divergent tectonic plate boundary located along the floor of the Pacific Ocean. It separates the Pacific Plate to the west from (north to south) the North American Plate, the Rivera Plate, the Cocos Plate, the Nazca Plate, and the Antarctic Plate. It runs from an undefined point near Antarctica in the south northward to its termination at the northern end of the Gulf of California in the Salton Sea basin in southern California.

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.

The same thing is happening in Africa at the Great Rift Valley visible on the map above, between the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea.

Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orogeny

quote:
Orogeny (Greek for "mountain generating") is the process of natural mountain building, and may be studied as a tectonic structural event, as a geographical event and a chronological event, in that orogenic events cause distinctive structural phenomena and related tectonic activity, affect certain regions of rocks and crust and happen within a time frame.

Click to enlarge

The physical manifestations of orogenesis (the process of orogeny) are orogenic belts or orogens. An orogen is different from a mountain range in that an orogen may be almost completely eroded away, and only recognizable by studying (old) rocks that bear the traces of the orogeny. Orogens are usually long, thin, arcuate tracts of rocks which have a pronounced linear structure resulting in terranes or blocks of deformed rocks, separated generally by dipping thrust faults.

Note the age bands on the ocean floors, bands that cannot be explained with your "shifting back and forth" concept. Note that you can see both the mid-ocean ridges and the subduction and mountain building zones on this map. These different geological zones have different traits that identify them.

Challenge:
If you guys are going to prove the play tectonic theory to a fussy, cranky old Architect, then please provide the following:
...
I will look forward to seeing some real scientific proof. If I am not convinced, ...

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.

Interestingly, in my design office we evaluate the ability of subcontractors to accomplish tasks as part of our oversight of some government contracts. Based on your posts here, I would rate you "Unqualified: lacks the necessary expertise to accomplish the task" ... We don't make a special stamp for this, we write a letter documenting it. You can stamp on it all you want to, but it won't change the facts.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : more

Edited by RAZD, : added orogens


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Architect-426, posted 01-03-2009 11:40 AM Architect-426 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Architect-426, posted 01-17-2009 11:28 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
deerbreh
Member
Posts: 879
Joined: 06-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 123 of 445 (493569)
01-09-2009 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Cat Sci
12-24-2008 10:13 AM


"If wishes were horses......."
If you flatten, or smooth, out the earth so it has almost no elevation and then add a little water to the system, you could flood the whole plantet.

That's the model you've refused to address.

But no one is required to address such a "model" because it isn't a scientific model at all. To be a scientific model there has to be some viable scientific hypothesis to explain the mechanisms involved. So for example, how did we get from the smooth earth you are suggesting here to what we see today(and in 4000 years if you are a YEC)? Anyway the Bible clearly talks about mountains in the text, so this so called "smooth earth model" is contradicted in the biblical text itself.

Edited by deerbreh, : add missing quote


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Cat Sci, posted 12-24-2008 10:13 AM Cat Sci has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Cat Sci, posted 01-09-2009 2:39 PM deerbreh has responded

  
Cat Sci
Member
Posts: 9712
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 124 of 445 (493575)
01-09-2009 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by deerbreh
01-09-2009 2:00 PM


Re: "If wishes were horses......."
No offense, but I don't really give a shit.

I wasn't advocating any particular FludTM model, I was trying to explain someone else's.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by deerbreh, posted 01-09-2009 2:00 PM deerbreh has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by deerbreh, posted 01-09-2009 3:06 PM Cat Sci has responded

  
deerbreh
Member
Posts: 879
Joined: 06-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 125 of 445 (493580)
01-09-2009 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Cat Sci
01-09-2009 2:39 PM


Re: "If wishes were horses......."
No offense taken, though "I really don't give a sh**" doesn't exactly square with "That's the model you refuse to address", does it?

You ought not make a statement like that if you don't want to defend it.

Edited by deerbreh, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Cat Sci, posted 01-09-2009 2:39 PM Cat Sci has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Percy, posted 01-09-2009 3:22 PM deerbreh has responded
 Message 128 by Cat Sci, posted 01-09-2009 3:43 PM deerbreh has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 13362
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 126 of 445 (493584)
01-09-2009 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by deerbreh
01-09-2009 3:06 PM


Re: "If wishes were horses......."
Maybe I'm lost, but I thought Catholic Scientist was arguing against the smooth Earth model. It's an exaggeration of the "no tall mountains" model, and I thought he was using it both to make the argument more clear and for emphasis.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by deerbreh, posted 01-09-2009 3:06 PM deerbreh has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by deerbreh, posted 01-09-2009 3:30 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
deerbreh
Member
Posts: 879
Joined: 06-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 127 of 445 (493588)
01-09-2009 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Percy
01-09-2009 3:22 PM


Re: "If wishes were horses......."
Then why say, "That's the model you refuse to address" ? I am confused as to why anyone would argue against the smooth earth model that way.
Could be sarcasm I guess. I guess CS will need to speak for himself.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Percy, posted 01-09-2009 3:22 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Cat Sci
Member
Posts: 9712
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 128 of 445 (493589)
01-09-2009 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by deerbreh
01-09-2009 3:06 PM


Re: "If wishes were horses......."
No offense taken, though "I really don't give a sh**" doesn't exactly square with "That's the model you refuse to address", does it?

Had you kept me in context, you would have seen that I was talking specifically to Rrhain and his addressing of a model that he thought represented Buzz's, but that I thought did not.

You ought not make a statement like that if you don't want to defend it.

You ought to keep quotes in context.


ABE:

See Message 81 and Message 89 for further explanation.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE:

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by deerbreh, posted 01-09-2009 3:06 PM deerbreh has not yet responded

  
Architect-426
Member (Idle past 1123 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 yet responded

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

    
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 1216 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 130 of 445 (494708)
01-17-2009 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Architect-426
01-17-2009 10:57 PM


Things I know More About Then You
Geology
SpongeBob SquarePants
Sarcasm

By the bye, they're going begging over at Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes . You should look them up. It's right up you ally.

Edited by lyx2no, : Giving directions.


Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Architect-426, posted 01-17-2009 10:57 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

  
Architect-426
Member (Idle past 1123 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….:laugh:
About 470 million years ago…..:laugh::laugh:
about 540 million years ago………:laugh::laugh::laugh:
About 750 million years ago………..:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

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).

http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php/fuseaction/home.story/story_id/2031

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 acknowledged this reply

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

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4831
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 132 of 445 (494710)
01-17-2009 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Architect-426
01-17-2009 10:57 PM


Re: KT and the Boundary Band and other nonsense
You are off by a little bit in your dates.

The date given by biblical scholars for the global flood is about 4,350 years ago.

At the time period we are dealing with soils, not rocks; archaeology and sedimentology, not geology.

The K-T boundary has nothing to do with it either, nor do the dinosaurs or the Grand Canyon. Nor do any other geological formations or events or those vast volcanoes.

You can't just go mixing events vastly separated in time just because you think they might relate to a global flood.

As to the rest of your post? Its nonsense too.

You should be ashamed to post such unscientific and anti-scientific nonsense in the Science Forum. The only folks who believe that stuff are diehard creation "scientists" -- an oxymoron to be sure.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Architect-426, posted 01-17-2009 10:57 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by RAZD, posted 01-18-2009 10:36 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5145
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 133 of 445 (494711)
01-17-2009 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Architect-426
01-17-2009 11:28 PM


Re: The ocean crust - it's a great big bust! (or not keeping abreast of reality)
You've never even looked at the rocks in the Appalachians, have you, Archie? How in hell anyone that finished eighth grade Earth Science could mistake all those folded sediments for volcanic rock is beyond me....
This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Architect-426, posted 01-17-2009 11:28 PM Architect-426 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Architect-426, posted 01-17-2009 11:46 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4831
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 134 of 445 (494712)
01-17-2009 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Architect-426
01-17-2009 11:28 PM


Re: Cartoons?
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….

Cartoons?

Creationists know Jack Chick about evolution...


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Architect-426, posted 01-17-2009 11:28 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

  
Architect-426
Member (Idle past 1123 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 responded

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

    
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
30NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014