Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Catastrophic Plate Tectonics - Fact or Fiction?
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 301 (222505)
07-08-2005 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Philip
07-08-2005 12:44 AM


Re: CPT and Global Flood of the Bible
Philip
Every creationist working on a biblical timescale needs CPT - or some variant.
Why? Because geology tells us *unmistakeably* that plate tectonics (including the break up of Pangea) has occurred during the laying down of sediments including *fossils*.
Have I missed something here or does that answer your point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Philip, posted 07-08-2005 12:44 AM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by deerbreh, posted 07-08-2005 2:01 PM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 95 by Philip, posted 07-08-2005 7:19 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 92 of 301 (222545)
07-08-2005 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Philip
07-08-2005 12:44 AM


Re: CPT and Global Flood of the Bible
Philip writes:
1) Were not CPT theory(s), Hydroplate theory(s), Vapor Canopy theory(s), etc. suggested in the first place, by biblical apologists (YECs) trying to make sense of it all?
If by "trying to make sense of it all" you mean were they trying to reconcile the evidence from the natural world with Biblical accounts, then yes they were.
2) Does PT theory go against the ‘global flood’? (I know of only one theistic-Evo who himself believed there was a global flood (vs. localized flood)?
If you're talking about the flood of Noah happening largely as recounted in the Bible, then you are sort of correct. PT theory does not itself really deal with floods, global or otherwise. But mainstream geology has uncovered no evidence that anything resembling a global flood occurred 5000 years ago.
I see that in his reply TB claims that some form of CPT is required for YECs. If you're considering the CPT scenario, you might want to ask TB some specific questions about how closely his particular approach to CPT adheres to the Biblical account.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Philip, posted 07-08-2005 12:44 AM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Philip, posted 07-08-2005 8:46 PM Percy has not replied

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 93 of 301 (222600)
07-08-2005 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Philip
07-08-2005 12:44 AM


Re: CPT and Global Flood of the Bible
Philip says:
"Geological plates (i.e., as per Percy’s arguments) ensnare me somewhat. It will take me some time to factor and figure all this into acceptable unified-theory that fits the Gospel and Bible."
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but if you mean a "unified theory" that brings together mainstream geology and a literal interpretation of Genesis it is not going to happen. Hence the "need" for CPT and other supernatural events. Mainstream geology does not accept supernatural intervention because geology is a science and supernatural intervention isn't. As long as you insist on science "fitting the Gospel and Bible" (off topic but why is a Global Flood "necessary" for the Gospel - maybe you should start a new topic on that question since you seem to think it is important) you might as well go to a creationist website - in other words don't try to put together science and a literal read of the Bible - they don't go together.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Philip, posted 07-08-2005 12:44 AM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Philip, posted 07-08-2005 10:39 PM deerbreh has replied

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 94 of 301 (222603)
07-08-2005 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Tranquility Base
07-08-2005 12:58 AM


Re: CPT and Global Flood of the Bible
TB says:
"Every creationist working on a biblical timescale needs CPT - or some variant."
Why? What about creation with apparent age? CPT takes a miracle. Why that miracle and not another? How do creationists decide which miracle they are willing to accept? And don't say "if it's in the Bible" because CPT certainly isn't in the Bible at least not in a way most people would recognize.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-08-2005 12:58 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Philip, posted 07-08-2005 7:46 PM deerbreh has not replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4723 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 95 of 301 (222706)
07-08-2005 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Tranquility Base
07-08-2005 12:58 AM


Re: CPT and Global Flood of the Bible
No, you're pretty on target. Biblicists (I'm afraid) seem to require CPT or some variant to account for a parsimonious timeline that includes a 'global flood'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-08-2005 12:58 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4723 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 96 of 301 (222714)
07-08-2005 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by deerbreh
07-08-2005 2:01 PM


Re: What about creation with apparent age?
What about creation with apparent age?
Biblicists cite apparent age from a Creator to allow for God’s mature geological creation and creatures. Please elaborate a little ... to explain Biblical timelines and the global flood SANS the CPT variants.
While I hope I can agree with you, my own thoughts are a little cloudy, i.e.,:
1) If Pangea divided POST-flood stamped age pieces of geology seem irrelevant; CPT becomes a necessity.
2) If Pangea divided DURING the flood (via CPT runaway subduction or something) apparent age still seems irrelevant (to me) and CPT becomes even MORE of a necessity to fit the Bible.
3) If Pangea divided PRE-flood, then your hypothetical model may perhaps seem to fit.
A) Do you accept that fossils were unmistakably laid down over eons of time with the PT folk and Evos?
B) Apparent age was stamped into geological layers incrementally or something?
C) Geological layers show successive apparent age as might be expected?
D) The global flood caused relatively no CPT events?
Again, please elaborate a little ... to explain Biblical timelines and the global flood SANS the CPT theories.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by deerbreh, posted 07-08-2005 2:01 PM deerbreh has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 301 (222725)
07-08-2005 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by edge
07-04-2005 11:18 AM


quote:
Then you have a problem. I am sorry, but claims such as CPT require evidence. What you need to do is predict what effects CPT would have on the geological record, that would be unlikely to have been produced by normal PT, and then look for those effects. That would be evidence.
This is exactly what I said in post 48 that I asked you to read. Furthermore I will restate an assertion I made in that post, "I've said before that uniformitarian geology is so versitile it is hard to invent a geological situation that it couldn't explain with all all[sic] that time."
quote:
So, what is that force. Baumgardner relies upon only gravity as far as I know.
I don't believe Baumgardner actually modeled the lithosphere actually coming in contact with continental crust. For the initiation of subduction in his models it is assumed that the cold boundary layer that comprises the oceanic lithosphere would subduct when colliding with a continental mass. If you have a problem with this assumption then.. well I don't know what to say.
quote:
I agree. However, it would be good to use this tool to make some predictions and then find corroborating evidence. Up to now CPT is only a model and, as far as I'm concerned, it could tell us that the plates floated on petroleum and came from the moon.
It could if you modified the parameters. However, Baumgardner used appropriate paramaters so it does not represent a petroleum mantle..
quote:
I'm glad that we have your opinion. However, most rock mechanics people would suggest that lower strain rates favor ductile behavior.
And if you read what I said you would know that I don't despute this.. low strain rates favor ductile behaviour not by a direct correlation.. it is hardly a geological principle. Maybe I need to restate my assertions, much of which had implications you did not even respond to:
quote:
...whether brittle or ductile behavior is exhibited in rock is a question of whether the increasing strain does not relax and continues to build towards the rocks brittle failure strength with little or generally no plastic deformation and fractures (brittle deformation) or is relaxes through creep processes (ductile behavior). Of course, rocks can exhibit both brittle and ductile deformation (eg. a ductile material deforming plastically and then fracturing).
I think that the distribution of heat in, saturation, and the structure of the compressed crust are far larger factors leading to whether the rock will deform with brittle or ductile behavior and ultimately result in folding or fracture and faulting. If the confining pressure of rock under question is near the brittle strength of the rock deformation will transition from brittle to ductile behavior.
Folded morphology usually occurs in sedimentary as well as in metamorphic rocks. Folding occurs because there are layers of differential elastic strength. A limestone would have greater elastic strength than sandstone at equivalent levels of saturation. The weaker layer may even behave as a Newtonian fluid. When the the bending stress in the elastic member exceeds the rock layer's yield strength it will either fracture or yield plastically. Again whether the bending stresses propogating throughout the layered rocks results in brittle fracture or ductile transformation is going to be understood less if at all by the rate of compressional strain but by the characteristics and structure of the rock layers.
Folding in sedimentary rocks is probably better explained in CPT beause of partial lithification from incomplete dessication, allowing for pressure solution creep. In fact we know this is probably the case because minerals of high solubility like quartz are redistributed throughout the folded rock matrix from regions of high stress to regions of low stress. Folding of crustal rock is largely a mystery without pressure solution creep and unless there is data indicating otherwise, I think it is an outlandish assumption to think that old lithified rock with a large surface overburden have much significant saturation. However this incomplete lithification due to incomplete dessication in the early diagenesis of the rock will result in less resistance to ductility.
Therefore in the old earth framework, most cases of folding should occur either to saturated unlithified surface rocks, saturated subsurface rocks, and rocks with a significant overburden. Lithified surface rocks will not fold without fracture and unsaturated subsurface rocks without significant vertical compression will not fold without fracture.
I think [,therefore,] that CPT explains folding quite well.
Therefore, the argument that CPT=high strain rates==>ductile deformation is false, there are plenty more factors to fit in between high strain rates and the resulting type of deformation.
quote:
What other mechanism is there to produce the isotopic signatures observed that give the impression of increasing age throughout the geologic record [within the framework of CPT and a younger earth]?
Well, how about normal radioactive decay and old ages? Chris, do you really think that mainstream geologists have not thought about this? Do you think they would not have noticed radionuclides could not be explained by normal geological processes? You don't seem to give much credit to your predecessors.
My assertion was meant to be valid within the framework of CPT and a younger earth. 'normal decay rates', therefore is not compatible with that framework. I edited my assertion in the quote above to better convey what it is that I meant.
quote:
This is all very good for mental gymnastics, but that is all that you are doing right now. You need evidence to go one way or the other.
I know this. My assertions and argument is scientifically logical as it reflects on an inherent characteristic of the theory--that of it lacking development. Science is tentative.
quote:
You have major problem here and that is that the evidence you give is also evidence for mainstream PT
So what! It is also evidence for CPT!
quote:
which is currently OBSERVED and explains the geological record more than adequately. You need to give us something concrete and diagnostic of CPT if you want to be taken seriously.
Why are both the Solar Nebula and Capture theories for the origin and evolution of the solar system taken seriously? There is no unequivocally diagnostic evidence for either! They are both scientific and taken seriously because they both explain much of the data, despite the popular bent is to the solar nebula theory. Now you will probably note that CPT has so much data it hasn't yet explained, and you are right. I would argue that it is possible that that is due to underdevelopment.
-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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by edge, posted 07-04-2005 11:18 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by edge, posted 07-08-2005 10:45 PM TrueCreation has replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4723 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 98 of 301 (222726)
07-08-2005 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Percy
07-08-2005 9:13 AM


Re: CPT and Global Flood of the Bible
I'd prefer you ask him? I don't know his stance as well as you.
I'm not jumping off the CPT ark until someone (here) can reconcile:
1) The (fundy) GLOBAL flood feasibly occurred about 5000 years ago (via supernatural and/or natural events)
2) The "8 saved by water" (Noah and family) paradigm of Judaeo-Christian and Chinese traditions is not debunked.
3) "Unmistakable" fossil graveyard mechanisms become more convincing and parsimonious with the data. Either:
A) Fossils *appeared to occur over eons of time* as per PT and harmonizing with the Bible’s Apparent Age (i.e., to help make sense of your radiometric aged strata)
or
B) Most fossils occurred during global flood catastrophe(s)
4) PT theory must not contradict the faultless Bible record.
Else, I'm forced to cling to CPT and/or CPT-variants as valid theory, despite *invalidity* therein.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Percy, posted 07-08-2005 9:13 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by edge, posted 07-08-2005 11:12 PM Philip has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 301 (222733)
07-08-2005 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by edge
07-04-2005 11:30 AM


quote:
But your model for producing magma is by adding water to the lower crust and mantle. So, how do you want it? Cooling the mantle and outer core by rapdily subducting cold oceanic lithosphere along with water-loaded sediments will quence the very heat instability that Baumgardner needs. If we take 4000 kilometers of oceanic crustal and supracrustal materials and send them to the CMB, what happens to the thermal instability?
This is well known and has been considered in Baumgardner's models:
quote:
The criterion for runaway to occur is that the time constant associated with viscous heating be much less than the characteristic thermal diffusion time of the layer.
Furthermore the volatiles released in the mantle wedge are very little and only serve to lower the melting temperature of surrounding mantle rock and allow it to well to the surface.
quote:
At the same time you HAVE to dewater the huge crustal load somewhat; and you HAVE to produce virtually all of the volcanic rocks in a year, more or less.
Well every drop of water injected into the mantle probably is not going to get released into the surrounding mantle and subsequently well to the surface. Evidently there are pressure and possibly timing dependencies as ocean island volcanism only occurs above where the plate reaches a certain depth (125-175 km).
[quote]And this wouldn't be any different from the volcanism in quantity and composition that we see today? I think you are sweeping a major problem under the rug here, Chris, by simply ignoring it. But just think what evidence this would be, if you could find it!
Well im not sure. I don't see where the quantity and composition of volcanism would be different than that observed from CPT. Furthermore I don't know where the quantity of volcanism has been predicted against the expectations of PT.
quote:
You also have another fallacy here in that it is not up to me to find evidence or reasoning for CPT. That is your job, if you want to promote the model.
I am arguing in its favour far less than you are arguing against it. Assertions against CPT should be supported just as much as assertions for it.
-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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by edge, posted 07-04-2005 11:30 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by edge, posted 07-08-2005 11:03 PM TrueCreation has replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4723 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 100 of 301 (222742)
07-08-2005 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by deerbreh
07-08-2005 1:53 PM


Re: Bible as the Cornerstone of Geologcal Science
Re: Cornerstone Theory of Geological Science
I disagree. Your bad news seems to pertain only to false science. If you say natural sciences by nature are stilted and plastic, that seems to me as circular, superficial, and natural reasoning.
On the other hand, True-Science authority must conclude that *something immeasurable* exists deeply within quarks and the cosmos that SUSTAINS it all!
I view it not inconsistent with unified-theories to hypothesize that immeasurable sustaining entity proceeding from God and His Christ (directly or indirectly).
That sustaining immeasurable something (which sustains quarks and the cosmos) seems to me to be perfectly consistent with geological science and origins, even as Cornerstone Theory of geological science. Of course, some mainstream geologists reason geological evolution as Cornerstone theory.
Does theism fit science theory or not? If not, why are there so many theistic-evos in this Creation vs. Evolution Forum?
Deerbreh, the reason I’m here (vs. other forums) is to be zealous in my gospel faith by interacting with other naturalists in brotherly love, or something.
Admittedly, invisible things from the beginning of the creation are difficult for me to hypothesize about. But, I perceive it fatal error: to handwave these invisible things out of science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by deerbreh, posted 07-08-2005 1:53 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by jar, posted 07-08-2005 11:00 PM Philip has replied
 Message 106 by deerbreh, posted 07-08-2005 11:18 PM Philip has replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 101 of 301 (222743)
07-08-2005 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by TrueCreation
07-08-2005 8:44 PM


This is exactly what I said in post 48 that I asked you to read. Furthermore I will restate an assertion I made in that post, "I've said before that uniformitarian geology is so versitile it is hard to invent a geological situation that it couldn't explain with all all[sic] that time."
Ah, then you agree that the explanatory powers of plate tectonics are pretty convincing.
I don't believe Baumgardner actually modeled the lithosphere actually coming in contact with continental crust.
And you don't see this as a shortcoming?
For the initiation of subduction in his models it is assumed that the cold boundary layer that comprises the oceanic lithosphere would subduct when colliding with a continental mass.
I thought you said that they did not come into contact...
If you have a problem with this assumption then.. well I don't know what to say.
I don't have a problem with this at all.
It could if you modified the parameters. However, Baumgardner used appropriate paramaters so it does not represent a petroleum mantle..
Including mantle viscosities? Heat flows? Frankly, I don't know since I have relied on others who have the patience to actually get beyond the cartoonish diagrams. Face it, Baumgardner is a crank.
Therefore, the argument that CPT=high strain rates==>ductile deformation is false, there are plenty more factors to fit in between high strain rates and the resulting type of deformation.
Clearly, however, you begin to crowd the field when you enter the region of strain rates hundreds of thousands of time higher than observed rates. There just isn't as much room for ductile strain and we should see much more shattering than we do. Just my opinion of course.
I know this. My assertions and argument is scientifically logical as it reflects on an inherent characteristic of the theory--that of it lacking development. Science is tentative.
Sorry, but your logic is poorly founded. You do understand, don't you, that some logic is fallacious. In fact, scientifically speaking, your logic is fallacious because it lacks any support other than the fact that you wish it to be so.
So what! It is also evidence for CPT!
And it is also evidence for last Thursdayism. See, Chris, this is a typical YEC problem. YOu have a reigning paradigm that has great explanatory power; and yet you think that another theory, based solely on wishful thinking and faulty logic, should be treated on the same level. This is scientific chaos. It will not be accepted. Do you realize the implications if we were forced to entertain every crackpot idea that came along? Should we still be debating a flat earth? If you were to have your way, I will insist that we discuss phlogiston on these same pages. And I expect government funding to support my research, as well.
Why are both the Solar Nebula and Capture theories for the origin and evolution of the solar system taken seriously?
I am unaware of these theories and can only take your word that they are either controversial and taken seriously. My guess is that they explain some facet of the universe better than competing theories, even if they do not explain everything.
There is no unequivocally diagnostic evidence for either!
Actually, there is. For instance, the combination of radiometric dating and paleomagnetism is pretty diagnostic for plate tectonics. HOwever, I note that you have moved the goal posts. You have modified my statement to say 'unequivocal' diagnostic evidence. Sorry, but the nature of a geologic datum is always equivocal. It is the combination of numerous independent lines of evidence that corroborate mainstream plate tectonics.
They are both scientific and taken seriously because they both explain much of the data, ...
Well, there you go. I'll bet there is some evidence that they explain better than competing theories. The point is that CPT really doesn't, despite your opinion.
...despite the popular bent is to the solar nebula theory. Now you will probably note that CPT has so much data it hasn't yet explained, and you are right. I would argue that it is possible that that is due to underdevelopment.
Well, then you'd better get to work. My advice is, however, that you are wasting your time, breath and money. The only reason for CPT to be considered is the desperate hope for an explanation of the biblical flood. Baumgardner admits this himself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by TrueCreation, posted 07-08-2005 8:44 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by TrueCreation, posted 07-08-2005 11:36 PM edge has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 102 of 301 (222747)
07-08-2005 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Philip
07-08-2005 10:39 PM


Re: Bible as the Cornerstone of Geologcal Science
Does theism fit science theory or not? If not, why are there so many theistic-evos in this Creation vs. Evolution Forum?
Well, if you were to survey the 'theistic-evos' that are here I think you'd find several telling characteristics.
  • they all understand that the Biblical accounts were never meant to be read literally.
  • they all understand that there was never a Noachian Flood.
  • they all understand that the universe is far older than 6000 years.
  • they all understand that there is no evidence to support a human population bottleneck as would be seen if everyone descended from the 8 or 9 people that survived a Biblical flood.
There is no problem fitting Theism, even Christiantity and Science. You do have to understand though that there is no way to have the Literal Bible fit with reality.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Philip, posted 07-08-2005 10:39 PM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Philip, posted 07-11-2005 12:44 PM jar has replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 103 of 301 (222749)
07-08-2005 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by TrueCreation
07-08-2005 9:33 PM


This is well known and has been considered in Baumgardner's models:
First of all I'm not asking about Baumgardner's models. I'm asking you why increasing subduction rates by hundreds of thousands times does not affect the quantity, style and composition of volcanism. And why are igneous rocks spread out all over the geologic time scale rather than clumped together in one year?
Furthermore the volatiles released in the mantle wedge are very little and only serve to lower the melting temperature of surrounding mantle rock and allow it to well to the surface.
Hold on! Do you really think that the only place volcanism would be affected is at convergent bounaries? This is silly. Why do the Icelandic volcanoes produce so much in the way of toxic gases, then? And you think that the mantle wedge is the source of volatiles? Sorry, Chris, this won't wash.
Well every drop of water injected into the mantle probably is not going to get released into the surrounding mantle and subsequently well to the surface. Evidently there are pressure and possibly timing dependencies as ocean island volcanism only occurs above where the plate reaches a certain depth (125-175 km).
(Sigh) Chris, I don't care if it's a one percent efficient conversion. You still increase the consumption rate of oceanic crust hundreds of thousands of times.
Well im not sure. I don't see where the quantity and composition of volcanism would be different than that observed from CPT. Furthermore I don't know where the quantity of volcanism has been predicted against the expectations of PT.
Chris, you have increased the rate of oceanic crust consumption by hundreds of thousands of times. YOu have increased the rate of crustal production likewise. NOt only that, but you have put a significant part of the entire planet's volcanic rock production, since the beginning into a one year (more or less) time frame. ARe you seriously telling us that this would be no different than what we see today?
I am arguing in its favour far less than you are arguing against it.
The point being. I mean, other than the fact that I have it relatively easy. I guess I'm just shocked that anyone with a modicum of geologic understanding would even attempt to support a fantastic theory promoted by a religious fanatic.
Assertions against CPT should be supported just as much as assertions for it.
Which is exactly what we have all been doing here. The record of volcanism is just one argument against CPT. And you have not handled it very well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by TrueCreation, posted 07-08-2005 9:33 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by TrueCreation, posted 07-08-2005 11:51 PM edge has replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 301 (222750)
07-08-2005 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Percy
07-04-2005 6:00 PM


Re: Censored CPT and Hydroplate Theories
quote:
I promised you geomagnetic data? Are you sure? That doesn't sound familiar at all, I don't know where I'd even find geomagnetic data, and making statemnts first with promises of data later is not the kind of thing I tend to do. In fact, it's the kind of thing I do my darndest to discourage. Let me check my posts in this thread...
Nope, I don't see where I promised you any geomagnetic data. If you're sure of this then you're going to have to remind me what you're talking about.
Ok you might be right that you didn't promise me "geomagnetic data". What you did is assert way back in post 13 that:
quote:
Why is CPT inconsistent with magnetic reversal data?
I am interested in seeing what you have up your sleeve in this instance since I have been very interested in and have studied the geomagnetic record a bit. I don't see where it is inconsistent with CPT, so I want you to explain to me why it is.
quote:
Chris, do you remember a few years ago when people were telling you to walk before you run, in other words, to start with introductory texts and work your way up instead of starting with technical papers? That was good advice. Your error in thinking that modern geology characterizes itself as uniformitarian derives from accepting the characterizations of Creationist sources (there is no other source of this particular piece of misinformation) and from having to correct information because you started with the complicated instead of the basic. It explains the huge gaps in your geological knowledge. It's why you view geology as a bunch of disconnected facts instead of a unified whole where each set of facts reinforces and confirms many other sets of facts. If you get yourself an introductory text on geology, you'll find uniformitarianism near the beginning in the section outlining the history of geology. You will not find it explained as a principle of modern geology.
If after doing your research you somehow manage to conclude that you are not "erroring" then God help you.
Oh please, I didn't tell you that you should learn to walk before you run when you were completely confused as to what fundamentally causes subduction. If I had misrepresented uniformitarianism to some extent, fine, but because my errors are not widespread I find it ridiculous to therefore conclude that I have skipped over the fundamentals of geology. I am not lashing out at you in any way, but I would consider it offensive to be known as a typical creationist drone that only reads YEC literature..
Furthermore, you might be interested to know that modern geological thought is refered to as "The New Uniformitarianism" and "catastrophic uniformitrianism" in some of my geology texts.
Please note what you said in post:
quote:
Unless you use the term to refer to classical uniformitarianism (there's no other kind), you are using it incorrectly. You can't define terms to mean whatever you want them to mean. You've been informed of your error, please stop. No one here is applying misleading adjectives to CPT, please don't apply misleading adjectives to geology.
Italic emphasis mine.
Ref: Lemon, Roy R., Principles of Sedimentology, 1990. pp. 29-31.
and: Ager, D. V., 1981, The nature of the stratigraphical record, 2nd ed., 1981. pp. 122.
It appears I was not quite as wrong as you imply. God help me..
quote:
Of course they're not accurate. They weren't intended to be accurate. The exercise was to find a lower bound on the smallest amount of required energy, because if this lower bound was sufficient to melt the earth's surface, then more accurate calculations that included all the continents (instead of just North America) and that included all the processes (instead of just the initial acceleration) could only be worse. But the lower bound proved to require very little energy with respect to the entire ocean, let alone with respect to the entire earth.
Right. My statement was basically restating in agreement with you, that they were not meant to be accurate. I wasn't trying to state it as if it were a 'problem' with your calculations.
quote:
Please, Chris, don't be ridiculous. You have no way of knowing. You must at least provide a coefficient of friction, a calculation of the surface area of contact, provide an estimated speed, and then perform a rough calculation to give us a ballpark figure.
Yes, I guess that is just my guess then! The amount of heat would have to be extraordinary and I don't envision basal friction to be even close to significant. One because the dissipated heat would probably go into the process of continental delamination and also because there is no solid contact between the elastic lithosphere, underlying lithosphere, and mantle (see post 17 and Chiroptera and I's preceeding dialog). Material at the boundary layer would deform plastically. I presume that continental motion is induced by basal drag from the convecting mantle.
quote:
This raises a further question. If the base of the continental crust experiences friction with the underlying lithosphere, then it can't be mantle currents providing the impetus for tectonic plate motion. What is your proposed mechanism for plate motion? Are the plates being pushed by the magma from the oceanic ridges?
What? Friction and basal drag due to a convecting mantle can occur simultaneously. Look at it this way. If the lithosphere moves a distance x and underlying flow the mantle moves mantle material a distance y, then if 0 < x < y then basal drag has succeeded in carrying the lithosphere with the current by a factor y-x.
quote:
And how is this 10*28 joules figure calculated? It seems like a lot of heat, and if measured against the ocean it actually is. It's enough heat to raise the temperature of the entire ocean by 19,000 oC.
But measured against the mantle it isn't very much. The specific heat of granite is 800 joules/goC (much, much higher than water), and it's density is 2600 kg/m3. In a rough approximation, it's enough heat to raise the temperature of the top 10 miles of the earth (1.11x1021m3 or 2.89x1027 grams of granite) by about 10oC, which doesn't sound like much of a temperature increase, but in order to spread throughout the mantle as you claim there has first to be a hell of a temperature gradient beginning at the heat's source, which you haven't revealed in any more detail except to say the "runaway process itself".
I'd like to hear how the 10^28 joules figure was calculated, and I'd like to hear a description of the runaway process itself that causes the heat.
The heat is calculated from the release of gravitational potential energy and viscous heating especially around ascending and descending plumes. You can read all about the runaway process in Baumgardners papers and they are available online as I am sure you know. I couldn't explain the processes better than he does.
-Chris Grose
This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-08-2005 11:55 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Percy, posted 07-04-2005 6:00 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Percy, posted 07-09-2005 9:41 AM TrueCreation has replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 105 of 301 (222752)
07-08-2005 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Philip
07-08-2005 8:46 PM


Re: CPT and Global Flood of the Bible
I'm not jumping off the CPT ark until someone (here) can reconcile:
1) The (fundy) GLOBAL flood feasibly occurred about 5000 years ago (via supernatural and/or natural events)
2) The "8 saved by water" (Noah and family) paradigm of Judaeo-Christian and Chinese traditions is not debunked.
3) "Unmistakable" fossil graveyard mechanisms become more convincing and parsimonious with the data. Either:
A) Fossils *appeared to occur over eons of time* as per PT and harmonizing with the Bible’s Apparent Age (i.e., to help make sense of your radiometric aged strata)
or
B) Most fossils occurred during global flood catastrophe(s)
4) PT theory must not contradict the faultless Bible record.
Else, I'm forced to cling to CPT and/or CPT-variants as valid theory, despite *invalidity* therein.
As I have said, you are free to believe whatever you want. My point, however, is that, if you look closely, the only conflict between the bible and mainstream science is YOUR interpretation of the scripture. There is nowhere in the bible that a 6ky age is specified. There is nowhere in the bible that the method by which creation occurred is specified. These are simple-minded fundamentalist constructs and nothing more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Philip, posted 07-08-2005 8:46 PM Philip has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024