Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8734 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-28-2017 12:14 AM
427 online now:
Coyote, kbertsche, NoNukes, PaulK, Porosity (5 members, 422 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 802,056 Year: 6,662/21,208 Month: 2,423/2,634 Week: 86/525 Day: 1/60 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
567Next
Author Topic:   Heat release from tectonic friction
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5541
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 46 of 102 (684147)
12-16-2012 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Faith
12-15-2012 9:52 PM


Re: Babbling
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?

That is based on your statement, a few posts above, to the effect that:

quote:
Having the continents in one place explains things like how the animals got home after the great flood and how humans scattered after the Tower of Babel was destroyed.

This implies that the continents were all together at the time of the tower, which I am placing at about 4,000 years ago.

I understand it to have started either during or shortly after the Flood. That's 4300 years ago.

Not unless Noah and kin managed to produce enough people to reconstitute a civilization capable of supporting themselves and doing massive engineering projects in just 50 years. I gave them the benefit of the doubt, at 350 years. Even that's not possible.

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?

From 4,000 years ago to 3,200 years ago you are saying that the continents spread enough that a previously landlocked area formed the Mediterranean sea AND the people adjacent to that new sea learned seafaring? With the water level approaching that fast I'd have guessed they'd still be running for the hills!

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.

You still have to do all the tectonic movements in a scant 800 years. People don't develop seafaring cultures until they have a sea to play on. You have the continents together about 4,000 years ago and the oceans and seas by 3,200 years ago. In that time the continents had to have assumed their approximate modern positions. That's just not feasible.

You started out on this thread saying it could be done in several thousand years, and that was shown to be impossible. Now you're trying to defend the same events in a scant 800 or so years.

Really, there is only so much nonsense I can believe all at once, and you have far exceeded that limit. Don't you have any connection to reality at all?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 12-15-2012 9:52 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 12-16-2012 2:00 AM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 12-16-2012 2:25 AM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 51 by NoNukes, posted 12-16-2012 1:04 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 47 of 102 (684148)
12-16-2012 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Coyote
12-16-2012 1:27 AM


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

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Coyote, posted 12-16-2012 1:27 AM Coyote has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 48 of 102 (684149)
12-16-2012 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Coyote
12-16-2012 1:27 AM


How big a sea did Phoenicia need anyway?
I understand it to have started either during or shortly after the Flood. That's 4300 years ago.

Not unless Noah and kin managed to produce enough people to reconstitute a civilization capable of supporting themselves and doing massive engineering projects in just 50 years. I gave them the benefit of the doubt, at 350 years. Even that's not possible.

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?

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?

From 4,000 years ago to 3,200 years ago you are saying that the continents spread enough that a previously landlocked area formed the Mediterranean sea AND the people adjacent to that new sea learned seafaring? With the water level approaching that fast I'd have guessed they'd still be running for the hills!

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.

You still have to do all the tectonic movements in a scant 800 years. People don't develop seafaring cultures until they have a sea to play on. You have the continents together about 4,000 years ago and the oceans and seas by 3,200 years ago. In that time the continents had to have assumed their approximate modern positions. That's just not feasible.

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."

You started out on this thread saying it could be done in several thousand years, and that was shown to be impossible.

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.

Now you're trying to defend the same events in a scant 800 or so years.

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.

Really, there is only so much nonsense I can believe all at once, and you have far exceeded that limit. Don't you have any connection to reality at all?

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.


He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Coyote, posted 12-16-2012 1:27 AM Coyote has not yet responded

    
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 102 (684151)
12-16-2012 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by kofh2u
12-15-2012 5:51 PM


Re: Back of envelope calculation
quote:
Those are al resistive forces.
You are trying to calculate all the possible Forces that resist the motion.

The energy that it takes to move the weight of the plates through the distance of whatever is the case, over a period of unit time ought give us the answer, right?

E = 1/2mv^2?



Yes, this is the formula I have used. The distance is only important inasmuch as it is related to velocity.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by kofh2u, posted 12-15-2012 5:51 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by kofh2u, posted 12-18-2012 11:05 AM TrueCreation has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12443
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


(3)
Message 50 of 102 (684162)
12-16-2012 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Faith
12-15-2012 8:52 PM


Re: Faith and Science
quote:

Nor do I. it's only rabid anti-creationists who think that.

Your words here provide evidence that you actually DO deny reality because of your faith.

quote:

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.

Well I'd love to see a scientific demonstration of how sheep's coats are affected by the presence of striped wooden poles where their parents mate (Genesis 30:37-42) but somehow I think you'll find that one rather difficult. I rather suspect that geneticists and developmental biologists would disagree with the Bible on that one.

And of course, it is possible to test and measure the past in various ways - you just deny that reality because it contradicts your faith.

quote:

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

But of course what we observe now IS "something to do with the unwitnessed past" - that is WHY we can make inferences. And those inferences can be tested by looking at their implications for the present and checking those. The agreement between the various dating methods as discussed by RAZD is a very good example of testing those methods.

quote:

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.


Hutton's "assumption" seems eminently reasonable to me, and in fact I cannot see a reasonable alternative. Your scenario is fanciful in the extreme, and I see no reason to consider it even a remote possibility. How exactly could the lower layers tilt while the higher layers were on top WiTHOUT leaving signs that this has happened? What differences would you expect to see in the two sections you refer to, given that your observations are doubtless superficial ? And why? (And let us note that this is all about testing your inferences, proving that it can be done)

quote:

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.

Well you've given no reason to think that Hutton we being irrational. And radiometric dating is not founded on the assumption that the Earth is old either. It's another example of how assumptions can be tested, because if the Earth was young the evidence provided by the various dating methods should not be that good. And let us not forget all the non-radiometric dating methods you have to deny, too, like dendrochronology and the counting of varves.

And let me add this reply to your later post:

quote:

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.

Why do we have to accept your preferred interpretation of the Bible as absolute truth in spite of the evidence? Isn't it YOUR job to - at the least - convince us that God actually does claim that the Earth is young ? If you can'd do that then why can't we simply take the evidence at face value rather than inventing irrational excuses to protect your dogma?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Faith, posted 12-15-2012 8:52 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Faith, posted 12-16-2012 8:17 PM PaulK has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9333
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 51 of 102 (684198)
12-16-2012 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Coyote
12-16-2012 1:27 AM


Re: Babbling
Having the continents in one place explains things like how the animals got home after the great flood and how humans scattered after the Tower of Babel was destroyed.

Actually, I wrote that stuff. I wasn't quoting Faith.

I think Faith's point is that she should have most of 4500 years rather than merely 800 to get the continents to their current places. I think we cut into that time frame quite a bit using historical and geological evidence, but to use the Phoenicians we would need some evidence about how far they actually sailed when they traveled.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Coyote, posted 12-16-2012 1:27 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Faith, posted 12-16-2012 8:08 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 52 of 102 (684234)
12-16-2012 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by NoNukes
12-16-2012 1:04 PM


Re: Babbling
Having the continents in one place explains things like how the animals got home after the great flood and how humans scattered after the Tower of Babel was destroyed.

Actually, I wrote that stuff. I wasn't quoting Faith.

Thank you.

I think Faith's point is that she should have most of 4500 years rather than merely 800 to get the continents to their current places.

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.

I think we cut into that time frame quite a bit using historical and geological evidence...

But not with any accuracy or understanding of the situation I've been picturing.

...but to use the Phoenicians we would need some evidence about how far they actually sailed when they traveled.

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.


He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by NoNukes, posted 12-16-2012 1:04 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 53 of 102 (684238)
12-16-2012 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by PaulK
12-16-2012 5:06 AM


Re: Faith and Science
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.

Why do we have to accept your preferred interpretation of the Bible as absolute truth in spite of the evidence? Isn't it YOUR job to - at the least - convince us that God actually does claim that the Earth is young ?

*My* interpretation of the Bible is the historical interpretation of the Bible that was accepted in the formative years of Geology. There's nothing peculiar to *me* about my interpretation, it's quite standard. A lot of novel, corrupted and liberal ideas have sprung up over the last century but I'm representing the traditional historical interpretation. I don't see that I should have any obligation to prove that God claims the Earth is young when that was the standard historical Christian understanding of Genesis for all orthodox believers back to the beginning (with the exception of Augustine and a few others who had an allegorical understanding of it). Surely you are aware of this history.


He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by PaulK, posted 12-16-2012 5:06 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by NoNukes, posted 12-16-2012 10:17 PM Faith has responded
 Message 60 by PaulK, posted 12-17-2012 1:48 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 64 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2012 4:53 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9333
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 54 of 102 (684264)
12-16-2012 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Faith
12-16-2012 8:17 PM


Re: Faith and Science
My* interpretation of the Bible is the historical interpretation of the Bible that was accepted in the formative years of Geology. There's nothing peculiar to *me* about my interpretation, it's quite standard.

By formative years, you would have to mean prior to the nineteenth century back during the time when people believed that the sun and planets orbited the earth. The fact is that YEC belief was in serious decline before its revival in the twentieth century.

I don't see that I should have any obligation to prove that God claims the Earth is young when that was the standard historical Christian understanding of Genesis for all orthodox believers back to the beginning

You don't have to prove anything. But in a discussion forum it is not unreasonable to make attempts at persuasion, which generally requires evidence. I'm just not sure that such an attempt is really on topic here.

As I understand it, the purpose of this thread is to discuss whether tectonic plate friction raises any issues that reject a YEC interpretation.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Faith, posted 12-16-2012 8:17 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 12-16-2012 10:25 PM NoNukes has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 55 of 102 (684268)
12-16-2012 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by NoNukes
12-16-2012 10:17 PM


Re: Faith and Science
My* interpretation of the Bible is the historical interpretation of the Bible that was accepted in the formative years of Geology. There's nothing peculiar to *me* about my interpretation, it's quite standard.

By formative years, you would have to mean prior to the nineteenth century back during the time when people believed that the sun and planets orbited the earth.

That is not a Biblical viewpoint, that was the pagan view of Aristotle that came into the ROMAN church via Aquinas.

No, I had in mind the historical BIBLICAL view that is still the view of true Christians, has never changed, but I think PaulK is into all the apostate revisionist views which got big since the early part of the 20th century. The true Biblical understanding, again, has always been shared by majority Bible believers and still is.

The fact is that YEC belief was in serious decline before its revival in the twentieth century.

Not among Christians who call themselves Bible believers.

I don't see that I should have any obligation to prove that God claims the Earth is young when that was the standard historical Christian understanding of Genesis for all orthodox believers back to the beginning

You don't have to prove anything. But in a discussion forum it is not unreasonable to make attempts at persuasion, which generally requires evidence. I'm just not sure that such an attempt is really on topic here.

It's not.

As I understand it, the purpose of this thread is to discuss whether tectonic plate friction raises any issues that reject a YEC interpretation.

Go for it.


He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by NoNukes, posted 12-16-2012 10:17 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by NoNukes, posted 12-17-2012 12:05 AM Faith has responded
 Message 63 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2012 4:52 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9333
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 56 of 102 (684291)
12-17-2012 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Faith
12-16-2012 10:25 PM


Re: Faith and Science
That is not a Biblical viewpoint, that was the pagan view of Aristotle that came into the ROMAN church via Aquinas.

Geocentric astronomy was not just the view of the church. It was the scientific view as well. There is no reason why any Christian would have rejected geocentric cosmology prior to science establishing something else.

No, I had in mind the historical BIBLICAL view that is still the view of true Christians, has never changed

I understand that. The problem is that what you had in mind is wrong. There was no universal view among Christians in the early twentieth century that the earth was only 6000 years old. I'm not even sure that it was the majority view among Christians. I don't subscribe to it now, although my wife does. I know that you define real Christians to include only those people who are YEC, but IMO, that's complete nonsense.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 12-16-2012 10:25 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Faith, posted 12-17-2012 1:25 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5562
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 57 of 102 (684296)
12-17-2012 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by TrueCreation
12-15-2012 2:01 PM


Re: Back of envelope calculation
Hi TC,

TrueCreation writes:

Thus the 'frictional interface' wouldn't be localized and could be distributed throughout much of the lithosphere and asthenosphere.

There happens to be enough water in the lithosphere, asthenosphere and mantel to fill our oceans 7 times. That water had to get there some way, and sometime in the existence of the Earth.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by TrueCreation, posted 12-15-2012 2:01 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by TrueCreation, posted 12-20-2012 2:17 AM ICANT has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 58 of 102 (684299)
12-17-2012 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by NoNukes
12-17-2012 12:05 AM


Re: Faith and Science
No, I had in mind the historical BIBLICAL view that is still the view of true Christians, has never changed

I understand that. The problem is that what you had in mind is wrong. There was no universal view among Christians in the early twentieth century that the earth was only 6000 years old. I'm not even sure that it was the majority view among Christians.

I suggest you don't know a lot about the history of Christianity or of the churches either or what people believe in those churches today.

Granted there has been a steady erosion of true Biblical belief for a couple centuries or so, and it may be worse than I know, but the erosion -- the liberalism, the compromising, the revisionist "scholarship" -- accounts for the nonYEC views and the YEC views are clearly the most reasonable reading of the Bible, and that's what makes a Bible believer a Bible believer. I believe this is still the majority view amojng believers today until shown otherwise.

I don't subscribe to it now, although my wife does. I know that you define real Christians to include only those people who are YEC, but IMO, that's complete nonsense.

I'm on record here in a number of places including nonYEC's among "real Christians" so you are wrong about that. While I think Genesis is extremely important to the gospel itself, I've allowed that there are probably true believers who give in to science on that, although they shouldn't and I think it's sad that this has happened. I regard them as "real Christians" if they hold to the doctrines of salvation nevertheless.


He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by NoNukes, posted 12-17-2012 12:05 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by PaulK, posted 12-17-2012 1:58 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 102 (684301)
12-17-2012 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by herebedragons
12-15-2012 8:55 AM


Re: Back of envelope calculation
quote:
It seems the main difference in our numbers is that you accounted for cooling of the entire seafloor 100km deep. I assumed that the majority of the seabed would have been cooled prior to the flood, maybe it was created cooled off?

The trouble with that is that the thermal structure of the Earth is a fossil of transport processes, the history of which can be constrained to impressive precision by observation and experiment. An analogous hypothesis with similar credibility is the suggestion that the universe was created last thursday in the form that we remember.

quote:
I am not sure that heat from below maybe 10km would actually be absorbed into the ocean though? Wouldn't it be more likely to go into surrounding rocks? But even if only half of the heat made it to the oceans it would still raise the temperature by 7,000K.

Well it is precisely the 'surrounding rocks' which are cooling. Here is a 2D (average transect with age) tomographic inversion for upper mantle temperature over Pacific oceanic lithosphere as a function of lithospheric age: http://ciei.colorado.edu/...piro_research_files/image003.jpg

This thermal structure is clearly a consequence of gradual conductive cooling of the upper mantle with age, corroborated by many other geophysical observations in addition to seismic tomography. No other physical mechanism can account for these observations.

quote:
I am interested in your thoughts regarding this portion of the problem. In order for the plates to move at the proposed speed, the mantle would have to have convection currents that increased proportionally. Theoretically this heat could come from a rapid acceleration of radiogenic decay rates (a favorite of creationist theories). Would it theoretically be possible to produce such convection currents? What kind of heat differential would be required?

Well, the major heat producing radioisotopes are strongly concentrated in continental crust, so for every 1 K increase you might get from mantle radioactivity, you might increase the temperature of continental crust by 1000 K. Continental crust would expand into vapor long before the viscosity of the mantle decreased significantly. The magnitude of heat produced by accelerating radioisotopic decay is similar or larger than that transported by cooling oceanic lithosphere.

If you could explain the geology of the Earth simply by granting accelerated radioisotopic decay, I might have still been a creationist. In reality, it explains nothing while itself generating an endless list of extraordinary problems in the most basic subjects of tectonophysics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by herebedragons, posted 12-15-2012 8:55 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by edge, posted 12-17-2012 3:30 PM TrueCreation has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12443
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 60 of 102 (684306)
12-17-2012 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Faith
12-16-2012 8:17 PM


Re: Faith and Science
quote:

*My* interpretation of the Bible is the historical interpretation of the Bible that was accepted in the formative years of Geology.

And one that was rejected when it turned out that the evidence did not fit. That's the reality.

quote:

There's nothing peculiar to *me* about my interpretation, it's quite standard. A lot of novel, corrupted and liberal ideas have sprung up over the last century but I'm representing the traditional historical interpretation.

So in your mind tradition MUST be believed ? Even if the evidence is strongly against the truth of that interpretation ?

quote:

I don't see that I should have any obligation to prove that God claims the Earth is young when that was the standard historical Christian understanding of Genesis for all orthodox believers back to the beginning (with the exception of Augustine and a few others who had an allegorical understanding of it). Surely you are aware of this history.

I'm aware that the traditional interpretation was for a young Earth. I am NOT aware that there was a tradition that God said so - and THAT is something that cannot be derived from a plain reading of the Bible.

But even if it was a tradition, why should WE believe it ? Just because you hate the other interpretations ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Faith, posted 12-16-2012 8:17 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Prev123
4
567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017