Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potential Evidence for a Global Flood
Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 16 of 320 (565073)
06-14-2010 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Coyote
06-14-2010 2:31 PM


Re: Back to the basics
quote:
If you want to be taken seriously you can't have a date for the supposed global flood bouncing around anywhere between 4,000 and 500 million and more years ago depending on what is convenient for your argument at the moment.
Biblical scholars place the date somewhere close to 4,350 years ago, so if you disagree you need to pick a date. Once you pick a date we can examine the relevant soils and see what they tell us.
I would 'guess' around 10,000 years. From a Biblical standpoint, anything over 50,000 years as an age for the earth seems unlikely, genealogical omissions notwithstanding.
quote:
If you want to learn the age of a soil, you go to an expert--either an archaeologist or more likely, if no cultural materials are present, to a geomorphologist. They can figure those things out pretty easily. And don't bother trying to "what if" their results away.
This may sound harsh, but you are bringing red herrings and "what ifs" to the discussion and trying to substitute them for evidence. They are not. An example: "What if the moon is made of green cheese?" "It's not." "I know, but 'what if' it is?" See, no evidence, just an attempt to cast doubt a scientific argument. That's what you are doing with the mass extinction, volcano, and other issues. They have nothing to do with the subject. They are red herrings designed to throw the discussion off track and make you feel your beliefs have withstood scientific scrutiny.
The difference is that we have pictures of the moon. We can go up and test it at any given time. Problem solved.
Whereas with dating methodologies, they've been riddled with holes, and you have to practice a specific discipline to even partake in the dating itself. As such, I suspect many proponents of evolution have never tried the dating themselves, or even understand fully how it works. They are merely taking the word of a scientist just because he's a scientist, and not doing any research or original thought for themselves.
Catastrophism is now a recognized fact. Lyell and Uniformitarianism are no longer accepted as the sole end-all, be-all. Therefore, it is no stretch to consider that such catastrophes may well have changed the climate and atmosphere - the same climate and atmosphere that must of necessity have remained constant with regard to variables like carbon 14 upon which carbon dating and dendrochronology rely.
Furthermore, it's been proven that problems arise with the dating when variables like volcanic ash are introduced, or when the dating tries to go beyond a certain length (10,000 years, 100,000 years, whatever a given expert has set it at it seems).
Unlike with the moon, you don't have a physical object you can go up and test. You're relying on a methodology, a process, which is in turn based entirely on a theory which in turn is based on the personal philosophies of one man... who could be wrong. Furthermore, that methodology of dating has had predecessors, other methodologies, that have been abandoned in favor of newer supposedly 'infallible' methods. Why have they, in recent years, moved on to dendrochronology from all the past dating methods?
Because it sure looks like the Creationists and others knocking holes in each successive dating theory forced them to look for new methods. Do you realize how recent some of these dating methods are? They haven't even undergone a critical analysis yet and stood the test of time, and yet those who question them like me are considered to be on a par with questioning whether the moon is made of green cheese?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Coyote, posted 06-14-2010 2:31 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Coyote, posted 06-14-2010 4:47 PM Jzyehoshua has replied
 Message 19 by Kitsune, posted 06-14-2010 5:12 PM Jzyehoshua has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 17 of 320 (565076)
06-14-2010 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Jzyehoshua
06-14-2010 4:27 PM


Re: Back to the basics
There is no evidence for a global flood at 10,000 years either. I have only worked a couple of sites of that age myself, but my colleagues have studied a lot more. No evidence of a global flood. Sorry.
Do you want to keep guessing ages? Or are you willing to accept that there was no global flood?
As for dating, from your paragraphs it appears that you don't know enough yet to discuss the issue. If you could study some of the methods, using real science rather than creationist websites, we could have a better discussion. You have too many concepts mixed together.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 4:27 PM Jzyehoshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 5:04 PM Coyote has replied

Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


(1)
Message 18 of 320 (565077)
06-14-2010 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Coyote
06-14-2010 4:47 PM


Re: Back to the basics
quote:
There is no evidence for a global flood at 10,000 years either. I have only worked a couple of sites of that age myself, but my colleagues have studied a lot more. No evidence of a global flood. Sorry.
Do you want to keep guessing ages? Or are you willing to accept that there was no global flood?
Again, there is evidence that a huge extinction event occurred which wiped out 95% of all marine life and at least 70% of land life. There is also evidence of an underwater volcanic eruption that was responsible. We now recognize there is enough water beneath the earth to account for a global flood, previously a contention against the possibility. We also have flood legends worldwide with remarkable similarities. I refuse to abandon this as a possibility merely over a difference in dates, when again, the methodology for those dates has not yet been fully examined.
quote:
As for dating, from your paragraphs it appears that you don't know enough yet to discuss the issue. If you could study some of the methods, using real science rather than creationist websites, we could have a better discussion. You have too many concepts mixed together.
I get that with carbon dating it's dating the half-lives of carbon, and with dendrochronology is comparing tree rings to determine age. However, I also see noticeable assumptions made in both cases. You're assuming the decay rate of half lives is the same. Why? And you're assuming the rate of tree ring growth is constant. Why?
If there are worldwide catastrophes wreaking havoc on the environment, is it possible they could affect atmospheric levels of carbon? Or even affect the decay rate itself? Furthermore, we know the erosive effects of water and lava. If you have a global flood with volcanic activity, what effect might that have on decay rate of matter and carbon 14?
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Coyote, posted 06-14-2010 4:47 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Coyote, posted 06-14-2010 5:20 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied
 Message 22 by Coragyps, posted 06-14-2010 5:22 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 06-14-2010 7:58 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4301 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 19 of 320 (565078)
06-14-2010 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Jzyehoshua
06-14-2010 4:27 PM


Re: Back to the basics
These are old creationist tropes. Uniformitarianism and so on, yawn. How much actual science have you studied? It sounds to me like you've soaked up PRATTS (points refuted a thousand times) without checking to see whether the facts back them up. I am guessing, judging from your last post to me, that you might now be willing to do this? For example, there's a big sub-forum here called Dates and Dating. The people who talk there are not all scientists, so you'll note that this rather disproves your point about laymen accepting what they are told with no understanding. I'm sure you'd find many of the discussions accessible and educational. You would probably also find this article very helpful: Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective.
Also, you might want to bear in mind that some of the people talking here are the ones who actually go out in the field and find evidence themselves. Coyote is an archaeologist. You come on here knowing very little about what you're saying, and essentially telling him he's wrong. Maybe it's worth listening to what he says about lack of evidence for a flood-?
Edited by Kitsune, : Added link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 4:27 PM Jzyehoshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 5:19 PM Kitsune has replied

Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


(1)
Message 20 of 320 (565080)
06-14-2010 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Kitsune
06-14-2010 5:12 PM


Re: Back to the basics
quote:
Also, you might want to bear in mind that some of the people talking here are the ones who actually go out in the field and find evidence themselves. Coyote is an archaeologist. You come on here knowing very little about what you're saying, and essentially telling him he's wrong. Maybe it's worth listening to what he says about lack of evidence for a flood-?
I only differ on points I hear no alternate explanation for. Whatever his scientific background, he has yet to refute my points about legends from around the world or weaknesses of dating methods.
I try to reason things through for myself, and not merely accept the word of a pastor or archaeologist or politician. Qualifications are nice, but ultimately it comes down to the reasoning for me, where does the logic lead?
We all place our trust in something, but I have learned by now that people will let you down, consistently. Better to trust elsewhere, and evaluate on a case by case basis.
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Kitsune, posted 06-14-2010 5:12 PM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Kitsune, posted 06-14-2010 5:30 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied
 Message 33 by Drosophilla, posted 06-15-2010 8:16 AM Jzyehoshua has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 21 of 320 (565081)
06-14-2010 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Jzyehoshua
06-14-2010 5:04 PM


Re: Back to the basics
I get that with carbon dating it's dating the half-lives of carbon, and with dendrochronology is comparing tree rings to determine age. However, I also see noticeable assumptions made in both cases. You're assuming the decay rate of half lives is the same. Why? And you're assuming the rate of tree ring growth is constant. Why?
The assumption that the decay rate is constant is one of the things the RATE Project set out to overturn. They failed. They had to admit that the decay rate was steady for many millions of years. See the thread on that topic for more details. Your "what if" is disproved even by creationist data!
Tree ring growth can be checked against volcanic events of known ages. There have been a number of those in historic times in the Mediterranean area. If you study a tree from the White Mountains of Southern California, such as a bristlecone pine, and it has a reduced ring in the same year as a known volcano, and you see this pattern repeated over and over, then your assumption of one ring per year isn't such a bad one. This is what has been done. Your "what if" is disproved.
If there are worldwide catastrophes wreaking havoc on the environment, is it possible they could affect atmospheric levels of carbon? Or even affect the decay rate itself? Furthermore, we know the erosive effects of water and lava. If you have a global flood with volcanic activity, what effect might that have on decay rate of matter and carbon 14?
None. Your multiple "what ifs" are disproved.
Can't you see what you are doing? You're grasping at straws! You are looking for any "what if," no matter how unlikely, in an effort to prop up your belief in a global flood.
When will you look at the actual data and realize that it is overwhelming -- there was no global flood in recent historic times, be it 4,350 or 10,000 years ago?
Here is another bit of evidence for you to deny: A partial skeleton was found in a cave in Southern Alaska. mtDNA was extracted from a tooth. It was also dated to 10,300 years. The mtDNA turned out to be of the haplotype D4h3. Something like 46 living individuals stretching along the west coasts of North and South America have the same haplotype. If there was a global flood, in the intervening time those individuals would have the same haplotype as individuals in the Middle East and Mediterranean. They don't. There is continuity of this mtDNA type in the Americans during the time the global flood would have resulted in a discontinuity.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 5:04 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Woodsy, posted 06-15-2010 12:48 PM Coyote has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 22 of 320 (565082)
06-14-2010 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Jzyehoshua
06-14-2010 5:04 PM


Re: Back to the basics
You're assuming the decay rate of half lives is the same.
That's a pretty good assumption: it's because every carbon-14 nucleus has six protons and eight neutrons, and because quantum mechanics works! If it didn't, nuclear power wouldn't work. Computers wouldn't either.
And you better read up on what a "half-life" is. Hint: they don't decay.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 5:04 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4301 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 23 of 320 (565088)
06-14-2010 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Jzyehoshua
06-14-2010 5:19 PM


Re: Back to the basics
I added a link to my previous post that I think would help dispel some of your misconceptions about dating; it addresses every point about it that you have mentioned here.
Whatever his scientific background, he has yet to refute my points about legends from around the world or weaknesses of dating methods.
But as he's told you, that's not the point. Ancient cultures who thought the world was only as big as their local area could mistakenly think that a flood covered the world. To them, it did. And this isn't the thread to discuss dating methods, but your comments show such a bald ignorance of this topic that I can understand why Coyote asked you to learn a bit more before attempting to discuss it elsewhere.
Even 10,000 years back there is evidence in various places for human settlement. There were no mass extinction events at that time. The most recent ice age was ending. Can you tell us where the flood layer is? What do we look for, where will we find it?
I try to reason things through for myself, and not merely accept the word of a pastor or archaeologist or politician. Qualifications are nice, but ultimately it comes down to the reasoning for me, where does the logic lead?
We all place our trust in something, but I have learned by now that people will let you down, consistently. Better to trust elsewhere, and evaluate on a case by case basis.
Maybe doing some research or opening a science book would help you evaluate these issues?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 5:19 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 24 of 320 (565117)
06-14-2010 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Jzyehoshua
06-14-2010 5:04 PM


dating issues
Hi Jzyehoshua, off to a rollicking start.
Personally I find that many new creationists come in here wanting to talk about many different issue and get distracted by going off in many directions.
I'd advise you to narrow your focus and deal with specific items one at a time.
Again, there is evidence that a huge extinction event occurred which wiped out 95% of all marine life and at least 70% of land life.
Don't you find it curious that, if this were due to a flood, that more marine life was killed than terrestrial life? Shouldn't it be the other way around?
I get that with carbon dating it's dating the half-lives of carbon, and with dendrochronology is comparing tree rings to determine age. However, I also see noticeable assumptions made in both cases. You're assuming the decay rate of half lives is the same. Why? And you're assuming the rate of tree ring growth is constant. Why?
Simply put, the matter is one of correlations. See Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 for a fuller explanation. In a nutshell, there are three different dendrochronologies, from three different areas of the globe, that agree with each other with an error of 0.5%. These chronologies correlate with other chronologies, like the Lake Suigetsu varves in Japan, which is made from annual deposits.
These annual age counting systems also correlate with levels of 14C in the organic samples of the tree rings and debris in the lake varves, such that when plotted against the counted ages they form an exponential curve that happens to match the curve for 14C based on its half-life.
Exponential curves look like this:
This is a rather extraordinary correlation, given that the layers are linear incremental integers, and the 14C data is an exponential curve.
Anyone trying to claim that these dates are wrong needs to explain this extraordinary correlation.
And that is only the beginning of the data that supports an old earth.
If there are worldwide catastrophes wreaking havoc on the environment, is it possible they could affect atmospheric levels of carbon?
Yes, the release of archaic methane (CH4) from the continental shelf boundary could alter the proportion of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere, as all the 14C in those gases would have decayed already (of course this also means that the deposits are over ~75,000 years old minimum to have unmeasurable levels of 14C).
This would result in a significant jog in the data shown on this graph:
Just a moment...
quote:
Fig. 1. (A) Radiocarbon calibration up to 45,000 yr B.P. reconstructed from annually laminated sediments of Lake Suigetsu, Japan. The small circles with 1s error represent the 14C ages against varve ages. For the oldest eight points (>38,000 years, filled circles), we assumed a constant sedimentation during the Glacial period. The green symbols correspond to the tree-ring calibration (2, 15), and the large red symbols represent calibration by combined 14C and U-Th dating of corals from Papua New Guinea (squares) (8), Mururoa (circles), and Barbados (triangles) (7). The line indicates that radiocarbon age equals calibrated age.
No such jog exists within the time frame shown, so it appears that no such event occurred within the last 45,000 years. If you are going to propose one, then you need to explain how this fails to show up in the Lake Suigetsu data, or posit that it occurred before 45,000 years ago (in which case there would be no effect on any 14C dates).
Or even affect the decay rate itself?
Amusingly, we know of no process at this time that significantly affects the radioactive rate of decay. If you want to discuss this further, there is a thread, Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics? that demonstrates some basic problems confronting any claim for changing decay rates. In a nutshell, these halos take hundreds of millions of years to form based on physics as we know it, and that if the decay rate changed, this would have affected the way these objects form, changing the radius of the different isotopes, and this would result in visible differences compared to what is seen.
Furthermore, we know the erosive effects of water and lava. If you have a global flood with volcanic activity, what effect might that have on decay rate of matter and carbon 14?
Organic matter maybe, none whatsoever on 14C and any other radioactive material. This is radioactive decay, not to be confused with microbial decay or erosion etc.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : clrty
Edited by RAZD, : incremental integers
Edited by RAZD, : spling

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 5:04 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Coyote, posted 06-14-2010 8:08 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 25 of 320 (565119)
06-14-2010 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by RAZD
06-14-2010 7:58 PM


Re: dating issues
Good post RAZD. You have more patience than I do, and I'm an archaeologist!
One thing I find interesting is that many creationists try to discredit Carbon 14 dating as a means of supporting the belief in a young earth. Because of the widespread use of Carbon 14 dating, and it's popularity in the literature, it is often confused with the longer half-life dating methods.
What that tells me is that they don't know enough about dating methods to even know which methods to try to discredit! And yet they are trying to tell scientists who actually work with these dating methods that they are all wrong. Amazing.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 06-14-2010 7:58 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by killinghurts, posted 06-14-2010 9:39 PM Coyote has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 26 of 320 (565120)
06-14-2010 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jzyehoshua
06-13-2010 11:35 PM


micro/macro whatever
Hi again Jzyehoshua,
One of my pet peeves is the misuse of terms, especially scientific terms used in a specific manner in science. Thus I find it necessary to make sure we are talking about the same thing.
It might also delve into the question of whether there is evidence for microevolution as opposed to macroevolution, ...
I understand where you want to go with this, but I think you are being a bit premature to introduce this before the possibility of a flood has been validated, and it doesn't really relate to this topic but to the feasibility of an building an ark.
And before we even get there we need to have an understanding of what is meant by microevolution and macroevolution.
See MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? for a place where you can discuss what you mean by these terms.
Then we can see how that compares to how they are used in science:
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-13-2010 11:35 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied

killinghurts
Member (Idle past 4994 days)
Posts: 150
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 27 of 320 (565125)
06-14-2010 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Coyote
06-14-2010 8:08 PM


Re: dating issues
"Coyote" writes:
Good post RAZD. You have more patience than I do, and I'm an archaeologist!
Actually, Coyoto, I'm impressed at the amount of times you've been able to type out your first reply to this thread, I think I've seen it at least a good dozen times in various threads about the flood story. Perhaps you have it already copied to your clipboard for such occasions?
Edited by killinghurts, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Coyote, posted 06-14-2010 8:08 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Coyote, posted 06-14-2010 10:00 PM killinghurts has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 28 of 320 (565129)
06-14-2010 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by killinghurts
06-14-2010 9:39 PM


Re: dating issues
No, not on the clipboard but done on the fly.
What amazes me is the answers I get -- invariably nothing of substance.
Bringing up various "what ifs" is not evidence, and doesn't negate scientific evidence but that's all I get as a response.
"What if the dating is wrong?" No evidence that it is wrong, but "what if?"
"Assumptions!!!" No evidence that those assumptions are unwarranted or incorrect, just another "what if."
"Fossils, extinctions, volcanoes, local creation myths." No evidence that these relate in any way to the question, and certainly no evidence that these show the evidence that science has amassed is incorrect.
It is as if these "what ifs," these magic words of power, are enough by themselves to make scientific evidence roll over and die.
They only wish that were the case!
What it really amounts to is a stopgap measure. They think that they can hold the scientific evidence at bay by the endless string of unsupported and insubstantial "what ifs" they propose, and by doing so they can pretend their beliefs are not contradicted by the empirical evidence.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by killinghurts, posted 06-14-2010 9:39 PM killinghurts has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 29 of 320 (565134)
06-14-2010 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jzyehoshua
06-13-2010 11:35 PM


Parent Species
After all, if the 'parent species' Darwin pondered as an alternative to all species having a common ancestor ...
You keep being wrong about this.
Darwin used the term "parent species" to refer to a species immediately ancestral to another species or variety, especially (though not exclusively) the wild ancestors of a domesticated variety.
The existence of "parent species" is therefore not an alternative to universal common ancestry, but an inevitable consequence of it.
The term is so self-explanatory that I hardly see how you could have made such a crass mistake; though I guess that being a creationist has a lot to do with it.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-13-2010 11:35 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 30 of 320 (565137)
06-14-2010 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Jzyehoshua
06-14-2010 1:09 PM


Please Use Current Information
Jzyehoshua writes:
It's now known there are 2 kinds of crust, oceanic and continental, with both resulting on a deeper fluid mantle. Thus, a breakup of the 'fountains of the deep' (and possible volcanic activity) as described in Genesis could presumably lead to the kind of tear on such crust that might simultaneously erode the foundations of the continents. While we may not be talking about drift pertaining to the above-crust water bodies, what about below the crust?
Your source Continental drift - Wikipedia is poorly worded, the mantle is not liquid, rather a part of the upper mantle is relatively plastic compared to the solidity of surrounding layers.
See a more complete description of the asthenosphere from the same ultimate source here: Asthenosphere - Wikipedia.
Notice how this layer is not referred to as liquid, but rather plastic.
In the future you may want to consider using articles on plate tectonics instead of continental drift as a source of quotations since the top of the article you cite clearly states at the very top:
"This article is about the development of the continental drift hypothesis before 1958. For the contemporary theory, see plate tectonics."

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 1:09 PM Jzyehoshua 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