|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 6247 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Where did the flood waters come from and where did they go? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
TC
Furthermore geochemical fractionation of water (among other volatiles) out of mantle rock through surface vents (including seafloor spreading centers) is about the extent of what I believe could have been the source of 'extra water' from under the earth. This water, however, is an insignificant addition and is not going to effect sea level. However TB seems to allow for large "chambers" of water at least underneath or within the oceanic lithosphere similar to that proposed by Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory. I see little reason to believe this, and in fact I think that pre-cambrian tectonics would have caused this source to rupture far before cambrian tectonics (the onset of CPT). Yes thats a good point. I agree that it is hard to imagine chambers surviving that but I'll still keep it as a possiblity t oconsider when we have a quantiotative account of sea-level/tectonics tracking. By pre-Flood tectonics I guess you mean the origin and clustering of continental crust?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
TC
Accelerated decay is about as relevant to CPT as abiogenesis is to Evolutionary Theory. The mechanism for CPT is runaway subduction. I do not adhear to CPT and have not for quite a long time, however it deserves more credit than has been given. How do you account for plate tectonics on a YEC timescale in that case?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 988 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
I find it hard to imagine god needing water from deep within the earth when he/she had oceans of it on the surface.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
This is a science forum so I can't respond to Biblical questions here (there is a Biblical explanation however).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
quote:Pretty much yes, that is my understanding. As the oceanic lithosphere sinks into the mantle it releases gravitational potential energy in the form of heat. High stresses develop in the mechanical boundary layer surrounding the slab as a result of those gravitational body forces causing the silicate mantle rock to weaken. The weakening arising from heating can lead to an increased sinking rate, an increased heating rate, and greater weakening. This progressively increasing thermal weakening results in runaway. Therefore runaway subduction drives CPT. -Chris Grose This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-27-2005 10:26 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
quote:What I am implying when I say that 'I do not adhear to CPT' is that I am not a convinced YEC or OEC. I mean that I do not believe CPT happened or that it didn't happen. It is merely a theory I am interested in that I think is a possible alternative to conventional geodynamics. -Chris Grose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
OK.
The point is that while you can say
Accelerated decay is about as relevant to CPT as abiogenesis is to Evolutionary Theory. The mechanism for CPT is runaway subduction. I do not adhear to CPT and have not for quite a long time, however it deserves more credit than has been given. in isolation, for the reasons I mentioned earlier, *in the big picture* CPT does not make sense without accelerated decay because these are undountedly *empirically* coincident if you're in a YEC scenario. Sure you can look at runaway subduction as a fun toy but in a YEC scenario it's going to be side-by-side with accelerated decay and causally related by Occam. This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-27-2005 11:28 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
The back and forth between TB and TC seems good, and perhaps it would make sense if we let them decide together whether or not they have a significant issue with added water.
I don't believe the issue with radioactivity is directly relevant to the thread's topic, having only come up because someone mentioned in passing that Baumgardner's scenario violated physical laws, and they included accelerated decay as an example. Even though it is difficult to leave aside mention of aspects of a scenario that violate physical laws, I think contributors should try to do so nonetheless. TB would like to leave aside consideration of what he calls the kindergarten scenarios, and I think that's fine for him, but any other Creationists who accept the vapor canopy or other scenarioes are certainly welcome to chime in. The topic is about the source and ultimate destination of the water of the flood, not CPT or hyrdroplate theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2892 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
TC said:
"the rate of tectonic motion is not a physical law" Well, that is parsing the definition rather narrowly, isn't it? In order to have rapid plate movement, one has to have a mechanism that makes sense in light of accepted scientific laws and theories about how such movement could occur. Also, one would have to explain the effect on life of such rapid movement and why we see no geological evidence of rapid movement. Baumgardner fails to do this on all counts so his hypothesis fails, regardless of what he can get a computer simulation model to do. Garbage in, garbage out. This is relevent to the discussion because rapid plate movement is being postulated as a reason why there is no need for "extra" water and thus no need to explain where it went. TC says: "If you have been reading the thread and understand what has been discussed, you would not be asking me this question.. this problem does not exist with CPT." But I am saying that rapid plate tectonics is nonsense, therefore, one does have to explain enough water to cover Mt. Everest, because every reputable geologist accepts that Mt. Everest was in place 4,000 years ago even if YECers don't. You can't propose a "God did it" scenario and then say, "the problem doesn't exist because there was a miracle (rapid plate tectonics). If you want to get away from having to explain all that water, then propose an alternative that doesn't violate physical laws. edited for typos This message has been edited by deerbreh, 06-29-2005 01:04 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
quote:Right the early crustal evolution by fractionation of the lithophile component of early mantle composition is a process that I am convinced happened. In this framework I can't consider large collections of water beneath or within the continents as plausible. They would have vented very early in the earths initial evolution. Indeed there would have been some water left over form initial fractionation as well as water subducted with the hydrated oceanic crust, but nothing of significant magnitude. -Chris Grose This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-29-2005 02:29 PM "...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
Chris does not believe there was added water, so he has nothing to add to this thread. This message is off-topic, please do not reply. If someone would like to propose a CPT thread that would be fine. Or you can resume discussion in a pre-existing CPT thread, there are probably a few still open. --Admin
quote:The mechanism is runaway subduction. Can you show me that runaway subduction is inconsistent with known physics? quote:What kind of geological evidence would you expect to find? quote:I am assuming you know what the term, 'garbage in, garbage out' means. So can you show me that this is the case with Baumgardner's simulations? Is he using faulty parameters? quote:I'll agree it is relevant to the topic and therefore am happy to discuss it, however it still remains that because of the nature of CPT the ultimate problem posed by this thread is not an issue (whatever CPT's scientific credibility). quote:I think you have a strong misunderstanding of CPT. Within the framework of CPT, the himalayas did not exist early in the process and were formed through it. -Chris Grose This message has been edited by Admin, 06-29-2005 02:42 PM "...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2892 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
TC,
I have been asked not to reply because CPT is off topic but I will make just one point because I think it has general relevance in YEC/Evolution debates and is often ignored by the YEC side. You said: "The mechanism (for rapid plate movement) is runaway subduction. Can you show me that runaway subduction is inconsistent with known physics?" There is a saying in logical debate circles:"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." Making a claim, ANY claim that is contrary to generally accepted scientific principles and theories is an extraordinary claim. The burden of proof is not on the skeptic (me) but rather is on the person making the claim (you). Is there even ONE paper published in a peer reviewed scientific journal that makes the case for rapid plate movement via the mechanism of runaway subduction? And by rapid plate movement I mean the rate needed to satisfy the YEC scenario. If there is a paper, you should provide the appropriate citation with the actual quote that supports your position. If there is no such paper, you should stop making the claim.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
I never made a claim that there was such a paper. The onus is always on the person who has made the positive assertion. You have made such assertions against CPT. If you would like to support them open your thread doing so, otherwise your assertions are bare. I am not about to argue against vague assertions whose support is unknown.
This will be my last reply to you on this topic until you or I (unlikely) open a new thread or continue in another thread. -Chris Grose "...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
deerbreh writes: You said: "The mechanism (for rapid plate movement) is runaway subduction. Can you show me that runaway subduction is inconsistent with known physics?" This bothered me, too, for more than just the reasons you cite. Not only is it an extraordinary claim, but TC is being much less than forthright because he knows precisely what the problems are with known physics because they've been pointed out to him here many times. Rather than jumping right in and saying, "Here's how the energy problem is addressed, here's how the acceleration/deceleration issues are addressed, here's how the heat problem is addressed," and so forth, he stonewalls. But I have another reason for replying, and that's because there may be an aspect of TC's preferred scenario that's relevant to this thread. It depends upon his position about the 40 days and 40 nights of rain. TB believes there needs to be a source for the rain (once again the Bible invades TB's science, since there's no possible way any evidence could indicate the number of days of consecutive rain 4000 years ago). If TC also believes this 40 day rain occurred, then both he and TB need at least these two things:
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
An explanation for where the water for 40 consecutive days and nights of rain world-wide could come from. I would say that there is one additional issue. If the rain is simply recycled from existing sources then the water level somewhere must have decreased by an amount equal to the rain. For a universal flood scenario they must explain how areas became flooded without an equal amount of land being exposed. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024