Catastrophic Plate Tectonics - Fact or Fiction?

OFF TOPIC:
Thank you Bernd (I've compared your 3 fine references). I’m not a geologist, just a *heretic troll or something*; so bear with my spookiness.ON TOPIC (or TARGET)
I think I (might) perceive a mainstream CPT debunk based on *data* that:there is not enough water in the ocean to cool the oceanic lithosphere to its current temperature I’ll forgo your Hawaiian-Emperor Seamount Chain argument since ‘radioactivity’ may get more into Percy’s *obvious data model* that I’m still re-thinking.Perhaps, I’d suggest the following *absurdity* (until TC returns from the dead):*Supernatural* vs. natural global flooding (global rains one time for 40 days/nights) covering the mountains or pre-mountains (peradventure, a ‘god-did-it’ global-flood phenomenon that lasted almost a year (are you still here?)) Where such waters came from and returned to, Bernd, I’d rather not comment on (i.e., after what happened to TC and all)But might that perhaps provide enough water in the ocean to cool the oceanic lithosphere to its current temperature (without all the fish dying up north)?Philip
Edited for garbleThis message has been edited by Philip, 07-21-2005 01:09 AM

...feed the troll.

And if the Bible said something about feet? Would you reject those parts of podiatry that conflicted with the Bible's statements about feet?Wj is convinced you're a troll, but, then, he thinks every knucklehead is a troll. Some trolls really *are* just knuckleheads. However, what's the difference whether someone is being difficult out of perversity or ignorance? Some believe that perversity is rarely fixable but that ignorance is easily remedied, but like I said before, yours seems a particularly determined form of ignorance, one that is very common among Creationists.I again suggest that you read an introductory book on geology. Don't you think this is a good idea, too? Wouldn't reading a book and learning something beat all to hell the abuse you're getting here? And wouldn't learning some basic principles of geology hold open the promise of returning to participation here far better equipped to contribute to the discussion? And wouldn't that be far more rewarding and fun than what is happening now? Hmmm, or maybe you're ignorant *and* perverse.I think you're hopeless and that I'm making a mistake to do this, but here's the radiometric problem with CPT in a nutshell. It is not the only serious problem. There are also the heat, energy, sedimentary and magnetic reversal problems. Each one by itself is sufficient to sink CPT.Geologic layers are dated by radiometric dating. Radioactive elements decay to other elements, called daughter elements, at a rate determined by the elements half-life. For example, uranium decays to lead (it's more complicated than that, but let's keep it simple), and it does so at the rate of it's half-life, which is 4.5 billion years (this is actually the half-life of ²³⁸U, one of the several isotopes of uranium, but it's the most common one). This means that if you have a pound of uranium, after 4.5 billion years you'll have a half pound of uranium and a half pound of lead.Geologic layers are dated by determining how long radioactive materials have been present in the layers through measuring the ratios of the orignal element to the daughter elements (again, it's more complicated than that, but let's keep it simple, I'm just trying to communicate the general principles behind radiometric dating). The more daughter element there is relative to the original element, the longer the original element has been in the ground.What we find is that the deeper the geologic layer, the older it is. Cambrian layers, around 500 million years old, have higher concentrations of the daughter elements of radioactive materials than do the more recent layers above them. The Ordovician, just above the Cambrian at around 450 million years old, has lower concentrations of daughter elements. The Silurian above that is around 420 million years old and has even lower concentrations. As we look at layers higher and higher in the geologic column we find that they have less and less concentrations of daughter elements until we reach the most recent layers and find no daughter elements at all!This is just what we would expect. The longer a geologic layer has been the in the ground, the more time the radioactive elements in the layer have had to decay to daughter elements, and there should therefore be a higher proportion of daughter elements in older layers.CPT speculates that all the layers of the geologic column formed in less than a single year. In order to explain the concentrations of daughter elements in the geologic layers, CPT requires that radioactive decay must have occurred at a much higher rate during this period, about a million times faster. You see, it's been about 500 million years since the Cambrian. We know this because Cambrian layers contain about 500 million years worth accumulation of daughter elements. So in order for the Cambrian layers to actually be only a few thousand years old, during the flood year radioactive decay must have taken place a million times faster than what we observe today.Aside from the fact that there's no evidence anywhere that accelerated radioactive decay ever happened, if it had happened, what would that mean for life on earth? The average background radiation on the surface of the earth is about 10 roentgens/year. A lethal dose of radiation for a human is around 600 roentgens. If radiation levels rose a million times during the flood year, that would be 10 million roentgens/year, or more than 10,000 times the lethal dose.What do you think would happen to life exposed to 10,000 times the lethal dose of radiation? Does death, fairly quick given the high radiation levels, seem the only possible outcome? It should.But we're here, aren't we. Life on earth did not go extinct. Therefore accelerated radioactive decay never happened.--Percy

quote:

---

Percy writes:
But we're here, aren't we. Life on earth did not go extinct. Therefore accelerated radioactive decay never happened.

---

JM: It's not just the lethal doses of radiation, it's also the intense heat. Each decay is energetic and produces heat. Accelerated decay in the amounts needed to yield an 'old looking' earth would have positively cooked the planet. Here is a rather simple look at how much heat.ROASTING ADAM-Creationism's Heat ProblemWHy doesn't the flood story mention the boiling of the oceans? The intense heat produced by rapid decay? Why does the bible not talk of the heat shield technology needed to keep the water surrounding the ark from boiling away and the ark itself (along with its contents) from being fried to a crisp?CheersJoe Meert

Perhaps Phillip went through a conversional experience AFTER he earned all those degrees?This is not a flippant remark, I firmly believe that these conversional experiences close the mind of the person who has went through it.It is entirely possible that Phillip can work away at his job very competently and in a scientific manner, while simultaneously being completely closed to any contrary evidence to his faith.Some people have a way of maintaining their faith in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence, in this instance (CPT) it involves adopting any remote hypothesis no matter how absurd. It also doesn't matter if the believer has little or no knowledge of the subject, s/he will quite happily state that the experts are wrong, despite being unable to tell them why they are wrong.I wonder if Phillip goes to a geologist for advice about bunions?Brian.

In an article in the February 11, 2005, Science, geologists Anthony Koppers and Hubert Staudigel speculate that sea floor stretching might be responsible for the Gilbert Ridge and Tokelau seamount trails. Sea floor stretching is the kind of evidence that Edge and I earlier proposed in this thread might support slab pull as a significant force. TrueCreation might want to give this paper a peek: Here's the abstract: One comment from the last page of the paper touches on the forces behind plate motion: Here's reference 16, maybe someone can track it down: It would be interesting to find more up-to-date information about current views within geology about the forces behind plate motion. What I've found so far on the web about slab-pull and ridge-push is very undetailed.Here's a lesson in circumspection for TC. In contrast to TC's bold statement that slab-push is *the* significant force behind plate motion, on another topic Koppers and Staudigel say about the causes of seamount trails like the Gilbert Ridge and Tokelau: In other words, there's insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion. Would that the CPT people could recognize such cases, or even think of evidence as important to their theories.--Percy

Origin of the lithospheric stress fieldWeb access to the full paper is subscription-only (or it can be bought as print)

The abstract for reference 16 refers to a World Stress Map. Here's an image of a poster based upon the data: A few things. Obviously the poster represents only some of the data. And unfortunately the legend covers up the South Pacific where the Gilbert Ridge and Tokelau seamount trails lie. Can someone interpret the poster for us?--Percy

NF = normal faulting
SS = strike-slip faulting
TF = thrust faulting
U = undeterminedQuality of data (No webpage found at provided URL: http://www-wsm.physik.uni-karlsruhe.de/pub/stress_data/stress_data_frame.html: The stress orientations and length of symbols: I'm not positive, but I think Method refers to how the stress information was obtained.This link might help with visualizing fault data: Stress Regime AssignmentThis message has been edited by roxrkool, 07-22-2005 11:22 AM

To summarize some CPT rebuttals (for my benefit and/or other readers):1) Christ/Bible (*apparent*) conflicts with science leads to some creationists determined ignorance in geology (and other sciences). Or (as Brian stated)adopting any remote (i.e., CPT) hypothesis no matter how absurd.2) Radiometric dating (isotopic comparisons and daughter elements) *appears* overwhelming proof that the geo-layers are all incrementally *aged* (the deeper you go) 3) CPT speculates that ALL the (fossilized) layers of the geologic column formed in less than a single year. This CPT scenario would require an accelerated radioactive decay (i.e., with such an extremely accelerated abundance of lethal roentgens).5) (As per Joe Meert) Secondary intense heat radiation, would have boiled the oceans (and Noah’s ark) away if CPT’s ‘apparent age’ geo-column model were ever viable.(Please let me refute later)--PhilipThis message has been edited by Philip, 07-22-2005 11:53 AM

Hello Phillip,Some remarks to your last message.1) It’s not possible to defend a scientific theory by invoking a miracle. In doing so, you are suggesting that CPT is a piece of theological reasoning disguised as a text about plate tectonics. This would undermine the main point of CPT: to lend creditability to the idea of a young earth by bringing up a explanation for the flood which is not in conflict with known physical laws.2) Even when we assume that the flood covered the highest mountains, specially Mount Everest, the water wouldn’t suffice to cool the lithosphere to its current temperature. As I wrote in [1] we need at least 5,7*10^21 kg of water for the cooling, that is 4.2 times the mass of the actual oceans. The average depth of the current ocean is about 4000 m, the depth of the hypothetical flood ocean would be 16800 m.3) Please note, that I only considered the heat which is released the production of the ocean floor, you have to add the heat caused by accelerated radioactive decay, which taken alone would be sufficient to melt the whole earth. (have a look at Joe Meert‘s message [2])4) The Hawaiian-Emperor Seamount Chain argument I tried to make, states that even when we accept accelerated radioactive decay as reason for the measured ages of the volcanoes, CPT would have to explain, how seamounts can be build within a very short time frame (under CPT assumptions plates move at a velocity of more than 16 km a day). Please have a look at this link, which describes the evolution of the hawaiian seamounts. [3].-BerndReferences[1] Message 155
[2] Message 244
[3] Evolution of Hawaiian volcanoes - Wikipedia

Thanks for the info. I misinterpreted the title, World Stress Map. It shows stress along plate boundaries, and thought it would present which parts of the sea floor were in compression and which in tension. Oh, well.--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 07-23-2005 06:32 AM

That it happened because it must'a happened.This message has been edited by Admin, 07-23-2005 01:20 PM

Yes, unfortunately, even when an area is in tension there is still a principal stress axis. You might notice, however, that the Colorado Plateau is surrounded by lines parallel to the edge of the plateau. This would indicate to me that the those zones are basically in tension, oriented perpendicular to the boundaries.(added by edit)THanks for the site, Percy.This message has been edited by edge, 07-23-2005 01:24 PM

Philip says:"And, knowing my biology (i.e., we have yet to find a mutation that increases genetic information); I must deny traditional paleontology and PT as validated."This is of course way off topic but this canard has been repeated by creationist apologists for so long that it deserves refutation every time it rears its fake argument ugly head.A mutation is a change in genetic information. That means there is new information. New information means more information, since the old information still exists in unmutated individuals. To say otherwise is to deny that mutations occur at all which of course is nonsense. Whether or not the new information will be USEFUL information is another story. Often it isn't. But every now and then it is. Natural selection decides whether the information is useful or not. And that, my friend, is how evolution works - micro, macro, or nano, it makes no difference. So please Philip, stop repeating the YEC BS assertions you are getting off creationist websites. By repeating assertions like this you clearly demonstrate that you do NOT "know your biology", at least not the part of biology that includes genetics.