Heat release from tectonic friction

Don't you have to give some evidence for this? Have you figured out exactly the volume of water being heated, and exactly how much lava welled up to create the ocean floors and at what rate and how much heat that would have generated so that you could give an actual figure to your claim that "the oceans would boil off?"I once calculated according to my own YEC assumptions that if the plates started splitting about the time of the Flood 4300 years ago and continued moving but slowing down increment by increment until they are now moving at the estimated speed of 2-4 inches per year, which I gather is the official measurement, that their initial speed would have been 20 feet per day. That's lava spreading about ten feet per day on either side of the mid Atlantic ridge, and probably something comparable wherever else on the planet the same sort of phenomenon was occurring to move the continents. That's the fastest it would have been spreading and over the last 4300 years it would have slowed bit by bit to its present couple of inches per year.So, how about giving us the calculations to show just how much water would be heated to what temperature in what amount of time by that amount of lava rising up to form the ocean floor? Plus whatever you want to add for friction and the volcanic activity going on at the same time and all that. I assume you need to know not just the volume of water but its initial temperature and also the temperature of the lava.I also understand that you have to take into account the fact that the evaporation of water, which would be increased by any increase in temperature, would exert a cooling effect on the atmosphere. Something like this is how the ice age has been explained by creationists if I got that right. The point being that you wouldn't have ONLY a heating effect going on but also a cooling effect.I have a pretty homely way of thinking about all this, by imagining a large pot of cold water on the stove and realizing that it takes a LONG time to get just that much water boiling even with the flame full blast. And you've got an enormous volume of cold water in the oceans in relation to what is really a relatively small heating unit, it seems to me, so that your idea it would boil the water is quite exaggerated.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I didn't attempt to calculate anything other than the speed of the separation between Europe and North America, but all the continental plates were in motion at the same time and probably at different rates.I figured the distance between Europe and North America to be currently roughly 3000 miles, and for that distance to have been traveled in a rough 4500 years would mean moving at an average rate of 1000 miles in 1500 years, or 10 miles in 15 years or 3/4 mile in one year, or 3960 feet or 47,520 inches, or 11 feet per day. I put that number at the midpoint of the time between the Flood and today, or roughly around 100 BC or so. I figure that's the speed at which the continents would have been separating in 100 BC. Before that they were separating at a faster rate that increases back to the beginning, and since then at a slower rate that decreases to the present rate of 2-4 inches per year.What I arrived at was that at the time of the Flood the speed of separation, assuming maximum speed at that time though it probably hadn't yet attained that, was one and a half miles per year, or 7920 feet per year, or 600 feet per month or 20 feet per day.That's ten feet of separation on either side of the mid-Atlantic ridge being generated daily or less than 6 inches hourly, and that was when the originating volcanic action was at its peak.I have no idea how to calculate the heat factor in relation to the volume of water factor but again even with all the places the ocean floor would have been spreading from the uprising of lava, or magma, it doesn't look to me like proportionally it's anywhere near the amount of heat it would take to boil a large pot (say two gallons) of cold water on the stove in half an hour, not to mention the cooling effect from the evaporation.Clearly that magma is still rising and spreading as the plates are still moving. How long does it take it to cool as it becomes ocean floor? That has to be taken into account as well.ABE: Trixie's question included heat generated by the raising of mountains too, which presumably would have occurred at some rate commensurate with the rate of sea floor spreading. Any idea how to calculate that?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I would imagine there were many earthquakes while all this was going on, much of it begun even before the Flood waters had abated and certainly before Noah's clan had enough time to multiply and move far from their docking area somewhere in the Middle East. Probably some really gigantic earthquakes. There was nothing like the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles to be terribly shook up by them in those days.So no, I don't think it's all that silly.But I would like to get SOME feeling for the heat situation, which I'm sure has been exaggerated beyond all possibility.

Seems to me my input has been scientific so far. But I can leave since you say so.

I gave enough numbers to figure that out. 11 feet a day about 100 BC or so. You can fill in the rest and do the calculations, which I did not promise to do beyond figuring the rate of separation between North America and Europe from the Flood until now. Let's hear from you in understandable English how it works out please. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sorry I have no way of imagining what that rate of earthquakes means in real life so you are going to have to spell it out with more detail, with a little graphic imagination perhaps, as well as something clearer about the model you think works better with higher starting rate and faster decline. Why suppose a high number of earthquakes rather than a smaller number of huge ones?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

OK I will ponder and pray about it.Now how about the heat factor?

Nor do I. it's only rabid anti-creationists who think that. You too seem like a nice person and I'm not going to deny that you are also a believer, I'm sure you are, but it's very sad to me when people choose what they think is reality over the word of God. It's like you'd rather be forced to deny God's word than -- not reality, but your fallible mind's fallible assessment of reality. The only pillar of faith HAS to be the word of God and I can't get anything more than 6000 years out of it for the age of the earth myself though others claim to be able to find room for more. Yes indeed He did, and they cannot and they do not contradict each other. But scientific conclusions MAY contradict the Bible. They aren't. The true sciences are clearly in accord with the Bible, there is no conflict at all. What can truly be observed is not hard to affirm by the Bible. The sciences that are the problem are those that deal with the unobservable unmeasurable untestable past. But this is an illusion HBD, you can not in fact OBSERVE anything that has to do with the unwitnessed past. You can only make inferences from what you see now. They may be very convincing inferences, a lot of good calculations about what might have happened because of what you know about heat and friction and all that, but no, HBD, you can not in fact OBSERVE anything about the past and you really cannot say you KNOW anything about the age of the earth, it's all untestable inference and assumption.Hutton's analysis of Siccar Point convinced many of an old earth but all it was was his subjective untestable speculations. He assumed an angular unconformity occurred before the upper strata were built upon it. There's no reason to assume that, tectonic force most likely displaced the lower layers while a very deep stack of layers was in place overhead. Lyell even has an illustration that gave me the model I was looking for to demonstrate this likelihood although of course he doesn't draw this conclusion from it.Anyway, Hutton assumed that the lower layers were tilted first and then the upper layers were laid over them, which suggested a lot more time than was usually given to the age of the earth in his day. He claimed some millions of years between the upper and lower portions of the Siccar Point formation, but speaking of observation, the two sections to my sight look identical as far as any imaginable aging processes could be involved, weathering, erosion, etc. IDENTICAL. Rather odd for their being millions of years apart in age.So the earth acquired its extreme age by what is really an indefensible bunch of arguments by Hutton. It just SOUNDED right to people and the idea got elaborated more and more as time went on. Now you have radiometric dating, but since the whole idea was so irrationally established in the first place why should I trust radiometric dating? In principle it's understandable, but in reality who knows? It too can't be verified because you have no way to replicate the past, all you can do is assume your measurements apply.But even if some evidence seems to be unanswerable I've got to do what Kurt Wise does, and just say, well I can't answer it, but my allegiance is to the word of God over all fallible human thought. God can't err and He gave us His revelation because we DO err. If His world doesn't seem to correspond with His word, that's our fallible mind's fault, not His fault.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't "have" to do any such thing, FY, I can read "day" in whatever context it occurs to mean what it means in context. I've never seen an argument that convinces me that the days of creation are anything but ordinary days.But let's not drag this thread off topic any further. I waited quite a while before answering HBD, which I finally felt I had to do, but if the topic has any energy to it we ought to move it.

You SEEM to be explaining why the continents have to be at their present locations in 800 years but it makes no sense. You put the tower of Babel at 4000 years ago then you say the Phoenicians were sailing some 800 years later, but none of that means the continents had to have moved to their present locations in the interim that I can see.What does tectonic movement have to do with the tower of babel anyway?I understand it to have started either during or shortly after the Flood. That's 4300 years ago. That's 1100 years until the Phoenicians started sailing according to your timetable. The continents would have separated quite a distance by then though not to the present location. Why do you assume it would have to be that far?ABE: I think I know the answer, it just came to me. You've always pictured the Phoenicians sailing around in the world just as it is today, but the ocean distances could very well have been much less between the destinations of the Phoenicians than they are today.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It should be the other way around. You should be insisting that your "scientific evidence" conform to the Bible because the Bible IS God's word. Radiometric dating cannot show that the Bible is incorrect; the Bible shows that radiometric dating is incorrect.Oh I'd love to be able to prove it scientifically, but that isn't going to happen but I hope some creationist will. Or better still, let a believer in the old earth and evolution prove it. That would be great!Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What you call evidence is not the evidence you think it is, not when it comes to evidence for events in the past, it's a lot of guesses and inferences and speculations. Evidence is reliable in the REAL WORLD IN THE PRESENT WHERE I LIVE because it's replicable and testable here, but not in the untestable past. That's why a ridiculous speculation like Hutton's could take hold and drag science after it, because there is no way to test it. It's not even an intelligent inference as I note above, but if you're committed to it you won't see its flaws and I can't prove them to you just because there isn't any way to replicate or prove such things, it's all a matter of persuasion when you're dealing with the past, even if my inference is a more reasonable inference than his. You can't test radiometric dates either, you just decide if they sort of seem to fit your expectations or not.You don't understand "us folks" because you can't grasp that we really are talking about the omnipotent God who made all things, who really did give us a revelation written over more than a thousand years by many different inspired witnesses so that we could believe in Him. That's its purpose. In other words you could say its purpose is EVIDENCE.The evidence in that book is quite sufficient for believing the revelation, but you have a prejudice against it that blinds you to it, and people here have a knack for multiplying silly objections to it. As long as you compare God to fallible creatures and think science is god instead, you'll never get it.Anyway, THAT evidence of His reality should be our standard so that any other source of knowledge cannot contradict it. God made it all, one part can't contradict another part of His creation and revelation. And the bizarre thing is when people decide they must give up one or the other they so often give up the Bible in favor of their own fallible minds. That's really sad because the Bible is the absolutely solid part of God's revelation, anything that comes through human speculation or science HAS to conform to it or it's false.ABE: But shouldn't we be moving on to the untestable speculations about the heat factor under the YEC Flood assumptions?But I wish those who are writing on that subject would not use technical language. Please translate into ordinary narrative English.Oh, and I really did want your answer to my question in Message 40 about your strange notion that the tectonic plates had to cover the entire distance in only 800 years. Certainly they didn't. It would be nice if you would acknowledge that fact.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I did not write the statement about the tower of babel, and don't know who wrote it.

I'm sorry, Coyote, I really am trying to grasp what you are saying but you aren't being very clear. Perhaps your impatience with us idiot creationists causes you to leave out important explanatory information or something like that, but I really am trying and am not getting you.Again, I didn't say anything about the Tower of Babel and have no idea why anyone would think the tectonic plate movement started at that time. That IS what you are saying isn't it?What does the number of Noah's descendants and their engineering ability have to do with tectonic plate movement getting started at the time of the Flood? Water LEVEL? I'm REALLY lost here. In 1100 years (I start at 4300 not 4000 years ago) the continents should have separated quite a distance from each other, and I have no idea why the water LEVEL should have been affected by this movement. From the numbers I gave earlier I'd guess that N America by that time would have been at least a thousand miles from Europe, so surely the Mediterranean Sea would have been formed by that time as well even if it was still possibly widening (I haven't studied the movement of the plates in that area), already there for quite a long time when the Phoenicians started navigating it. You must be picturing something completely other than I'm picturing. It doesn't make a huge difference but just to say it again: I didn't mention the Tower of Babel so by my thinking it's 1100 not 800 years from the beginning of tectonic movement until Phoenicia. And again I have no idea why the continents would have "had to have asumed their approximate modern positions" for there to have existed a seafaring people 1100 years after the Flood.My point is that they didn't have to have the FULL sea that exists now in order to have a sea to play on. For all I know it WAS the full size by then since I've only figured the distance between N America and Europe, not the Mediterranean area, but even at half its current size it would still have been an appreciable "sea to play on." With all due respect, it has NOT been "shown to be impossible,"and this post of yours is just demonstrating that you are envisioning something that has nothing to do with the scenario I have in mind, I have no idea what the Tower of Babel person has in mind. So until you at least GET what is being envisioned you can't say you've shown anything I've described to be impossible. Beg your pardon, but I've been OBJECTING to this bizarre notion of the events happening in only 800 years, or even my 1100 years. The full distances would not have been attained in that time and didn't need to be attained for there to be a seafaring people. In this case, dear Coyote, you are making up the "nonsense" you are attributing to me, and you haven't yet grasped what I'm saying.Give it another go?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thank you. Yes, and they don't have to have been at their current places for many things to have occurred, such as the Phoenicians sailing on the Mediterranean. But not with any accuracy or understanding of the situation I've been picturing. Yes, that is what you need, thank you. But there would also need to be some idea of how long it took to form the full size of the Mediterranean Sea on YEC timing. It might not have occurred by the same increments or percentages as the Atlantic distance did (according to my assumptions, which aren't necessarily correct anyway of course.)Edited by Faith, : No reason given.