|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,918 Year: 4,175/9,624 Month: 1,046/974 Week: 5/368 Day: 5/11 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Plate tectonics, mountain building, and the Flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Unless you are talking about Gen. 1, please cite your sources. Until further notice, I assume you are a day-age person.
quote: What scripture? And have you any idea what such a crash would do to the Earth? Last time it made the moon.
quote: Interesting.
quote: But crashed planetissimals don't spread out and make continents. They melt everything and through stuff into space, leaving a big hole in the ground, basically. The dynamics of what you propose are unworkable. Plus, there would be distinctive chemical signatures had this happened.
quote: What?
quote: 4-6 thousand years ago? So the plates are moving half a mile a year, maybe? Don't you think we could measure this? Don't you think someone would have noticed?
quote: We didn't notice because the plates mve vastly more slowly than than you propose. At any rate, I think the Chinese had some understanding of this thousands of years before the west.
quote: I bet it is. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: What is funny to me is that if these same descriptions where found in Mayan myth, for example, they'd be instantly written off as myth and interpretted to mean some mundane indigenous wildlife. But since it appears in the Good Book, we've got to hear about dinosaurs on the ark. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Hence the request that you provide references.
quote: You are rather hedgy about telling us exactly what you are though.
quote: Interesting. And all of this is in the Bible is it?
quote: There is orbitting the Earth just such an example as well.
quote: No it wouldn't. A glancing blow is more likely to throw stuff into space, not to deposit it in a circle. You are going to get a crater, not a continent.
quote: What?
quote: They should be slowing down then and at a detectable pace. Can you show this?
quote: What?
quote: What gravitational forces?
quote: So you won't back up your claims then?
quote: I also believe that we can make up whatever we want when reading scripture.
quote: Not even close. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Hey, if you are serious, I won't turn down a complimentary book.
quote: Strange stance, but ok.
quote: You might consider posting just a few of those scriptures.
quote: So the six days of creation were in fact six normal days and God did his thing in the order laid out, but there was stuff prior to those days?
quote: I can see valid observations here and there too, but the same is true for all mythology I've read.
quote: And? This isn't terribly contraversial, but forming continents of those crashed moons is a different story.
quote: This doesn't jibe with your pronouncements elsewhere about Pangea. You appear to have two different stories going on here.
quote: That wasn't a this-is-insane 'what' but a what-the-heck-does-this-mean 'what'.
quote: And is this different from the mainstream explaination?
quote: Not an adequate answer. The plates move slowly but at measurable speeds. You've got your continents breakin up only 4000-5000 years ago-- right after the flood. That means they must have started moving at quite a clip and have since slowed to the pace matching the growth of my fingernails. After forty years a speed change like that ought to show up.
quote: Love the analogy. It doesn't help, but you get an A for the imagery.
quote: 1) The lithophere isn't a highly lubricated surface.2) Have you forgotten about the oceanic plates that the continents must plow through? 3) The continents slide downhill? Is that your mechanism? quote: ummm.... what gravitational forces?
quote: For He hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods. ummmm.... wow. That is a real stretch.
quote: Textbooks? Scary... That'll put you about fifty years behind the curve right there.
quote: What are you calling facts? Raw data? A wee bit of theory? Just curious.
quote: All you need is a good argument. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 'k.
quote: Why? Where is the common sense science to support this?
quote: What sudden appearance of a land mass?
quote: That exhibited impossible dynamics, like neatly spreading itself into a circular continent that somehow also represents the ring of fire.
quote: You do know that the crash would have to create all of the layers of sediment and rock as well as deposits of salt, oil, etc. that are found in the continents? And this without melting most of it?
quote: How much time? 4.3 billion years maybe?
quote: Except an impact of something the size you propose would destroy the planet. Consider. And bare with me, my math is horrible. The Chicxulub crater was made by an impactor of appr. 10-12 km giving it a volume of about 4200 cubic km. The surface area of the Earth is something near 200,000,000 km. 30% of that-- land mass and hence roughly continental crust-- is 60,000,000 km. Given that continental crust is 50-250 km thick I guestimate about 150 km and calculate volume at 9,000,000,000 cubic km. I am sure some of the smart people here can correct the numbers and maybe bring this figure down. Even if you cut it in half though, the size difference is enormous. Given the damage done by the puny Chicxulub you can't believe that your impactor would lay down rock and sediment in an orderly fashion and then melt only the bottom bits so the new continents could slide over the mantle. Something that size would turn us to rubble. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I can never do math with clothes on... I guess I assume everyone is the same. But... since you are nekkid already, are my figures at least close enough that the Math Guild will let me live?------------------ No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 01-18-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Sorry? No one would notice because you can't see the mechanism causing it? That makes no sense. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: TC, the level would have dropped thousands of feet very rapidly. Drop the jargon. I don't really care about mean surface heat flow. Focus, man, focus. You are saying that whatever mechanism you cook up will explain why no one noticed that the sea levels dropped? Whatever the mechanism, how can people not notice that the sea level dropped thousands of feet? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I don't care about the mechanism, TC. Just answer the question. How in bloody hell can people not notice the ocean drop thousands of feet?
quote: Yes, and the question is how can people not notice this drop? I can't think of any way to pull this off. I am imagining a continent and an ocean, and I can't think of a way to make the ocean drop and it not be damned obvious to someone on shore. I am thinking only of the water-line against the shore and pretending that I can pull and push the land masses at will as if by giant hands.
quote: LOL.... so whatever mechanism you cook up will explain this effect.
quote: Not in recent times, eh? Fine. Bet the Egyptians would have noticed given the location of Egypt. Come on, there were sea-faring people at the time. You can't think they wouldn't have noticed. Of course, I suppose you would deny the sea-faring people and insist that only the few on the ark were around at the time. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Your experiment won't come close to approximating the enormous speeds and hence, energies, associated with planetary collisions. Even firing your clay ball out of a cannon will only get it up to a few hundred miles an hour and this isn't even close to the speeds at which planets travel. Even so, fire your clay ball at a globe and you won't get an ellipse, a circle or anything else except thousands of fragments stuck to the walls of the lab. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Sure, if the velocities were low enough. They won't be. Gravitational attraction will take care of that. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I thought about the moon too. The moon is going to be a huge problem for the planetissimal theory. To tell the truth, I just pretended it wasn't there to simplify thinking about main collision. Here are a couple of thoughts. 1) There is no way a planet could approach earth directly and impact at the incredibly slow speeds required. Gravitational attraction will accelerate anything to thousands of miles per hour long before it gets to earth. A parachutist will accelerate to a couple of hundred miles per hour in a few seconds and then level off due to air resistance. I once saw a report about a man who worked on the early pre-space program. He jumped out of a balloon at 100,000 feet and accelerated to faster than the speed of sound. In space there is no air resistance to slow anything down. Gravitational attraction weaken with distance, to be sure, but at 385 or so thousand kilometers the earth's gravitation is still strong enough to hold onto the moon. So a slow acceleration for 400,000 kilometers or more is going to give speeds well in excess of a few meters per second. This will be the case even if the offending planet approaches from behind. 2) The only other option is that this planet was first captured into a moon-like orbit and spiralled inward. This puts the moon very much in the way. However, as the planet gets closer to earth it will speed up. That is the way orbital mechanics work. Go to the mall and drop a coin into one of those funnel shaped charity gadgets. You will still have enourmous impact speeds. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
Thinking about it some more. Even if we could cancel gravity and place a continental-mass equivalent sphere on the surface of the earth, I am not sure it would work. Once we reinstated gravity, I wonder if the sheer force of gravity wouldn't generate so much heat and stress as to pop the invading sphere like a firecracker. An explosion like that wouldn't make continents, maybe a few islands....
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I'd be interested in seeing this result. I have not found a good figure for the total mass of the continental crusts though. I worked up a guesstimate somewhere but it isn't good enough to actually use in a real live equation. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Look up star formation. There is a great deal of work going on concerning this.
quote: Do you have any evidence that this was actually the case?
quote: That one of them exploded requires that at least one was very old. What concerns me is the idea that only one was old. Given the probable mechanisms of star formation, both stars must be close to the same age. Now given that the sun is about 5 billion years old now and will likely burn for another 5 billion before beginning its death throws, you end up having to assume a ten billion+ year difference in age for the two stars. You also end up assuming a solar age of ten billion+, contrary to, and more than twice that of, the estimates of those who study the sun.
quote: ummm.... no. The energy released by an exploding star would throw most of the material out of the gravitational pull of the second star-- think "escape velocity"-- and the rest would be headed more or less right at the other star. You won't end up with much of a gas cloud.
quote: Fairly late meaning what? 4.5 billion years ago?
quote: So we have the Earth orbiting about 10 million miles closer to the sun than Venus does today, and the moon is just over five times further from the earth than it is now AND orbiting the Sun?
quote: Doesn't really matter. Gravity would accelerate the two objects to many thousands of miles per hour.
quote: Any evidence for this?
quote: WHAT???????? This is silly. Sucking up the ocean is the same as PULLING ITSELF TOWARD the earth. Both planets would accelerate toward one another.
quote: Yeah, no kidding. Wow.... you have no idea the energy release you are talking about. It is as if you were treating a nuclear bomb like a fire cracker.
quote: No it didn't, because it had already melted itself, along with a quarter of the planet, and evaporated the oceans. Planets do not behave like rubber balls.
quote: Not much of an objection. We know why this is and we know that it wasn't always the case. The continents move, remember.
quote: And? Your whole discourse on sediments is confusing. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 01-25-2003]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024