Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution in the Anarctic
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 44 (7460)
03-21-2002 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by LudvanB
03-21-2002 1:00 AM


quote:
Originally posted by LudvanB:
TC,whats the rate of continental shifting please?

Oh...on second thoughts,i allready know what you're gonna reply(thats back then,the continents moved faster) so i'll skip to the next question immediatly. Do you advance that the continents began separating 4500 years ago because there is evidence that they began moving at that time or because they have to had begun moving 4500 years ago for your model to work?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by LudvanB, posted 03-21-2002 1:00 AM LudvanB has not replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 44 (7463)
03-21-2002 4:08 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by TrueCreation
03-20-2002 10:55 PM


quote:
"WE see warm-weather animals, and then cold-weather animals later."
--This is 'Not' what your references imply, they imply that this because it is 'required' for the gradualistic theory to be valid.
May I quote
It was once thought that dinosaurs were strictly tropical or sub-tropical animals that avoided the colder regions of the world. In the late 1970s/early 1980s dinosaur remains were discovered along the southern coast of Victoria, in southeastern Australia, an area that would have been within the Antarctic circle at the time the animals lived. In 1987 dinosaur remains were also found within the Arctic circle in North Antarctica. A
Now I’m either stupid, or does it say that these animals were living in very cold areas. Well, since I’m contradicting the Bible, I’m stupid. merica.
quote:
"These fossils were found in an area that was previously tropical. Here's a quote
"In Antarctica, heaps of 3- million-year-old fossil leaves have been found within 400 kilometers of the South Pole. "
from
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf075/sf075g10.htm
woudl this not indicate that most of the continent was warm, the southernmost regions being temperate or cold at most?"
--No problem with that.
"SO you have proof that the plates could split under natural conditions within a matter of 4500 years? "
--Yes I have given proof that they could have easilly done so, its quite apparent by the inability to refute its implications.[/quote]
Funny how that proof is undoubtedly based on incredibly in accurate methods of dating, yes, the same dating methods that indicate a very old planet.
quote:
"Well that would mean that 2000 years ago, the earth would have looked very different than today."
--No doubt.
Again, the Bible makes references to Israel, the Mideast, and the Mediterranean. Now let me describe to you the position of the continents half-way to today’s position:
North America resembles a lemonade jug with an alta california on the back. There is not Europe, nor is their a Arabian Peninsula. Africa is far from Asia and has a bite in its top. South America is attached to Africa by a narrow bridge of land. India is around present day South Africa, and Australia is still a part of Antarctica. Asia is completely deformed- The areas of the present day malay and thai peninsulas can be discerned as nothing more than a leg, about 15 degrees east of where it is now. The rest of Asia is unrecognizable.
Doesn’t sound like the Biblical world of Jesus, where Moses managed to part the non-existent red sea
quote:
"But it doesn't say that in the Bible. The Mediterranean, the Middle East, etc. are all mentioned and realted to in their current form, unless you beg to differ."
--Genesis 8 and Isaiah 52, if you read, you see where it indicates a topographical alteration.
Had the Red Sea existed in Moses’s time, You would be squashing most continental drift in to a 2000 year time period. A little unrealistic.
quote:
"If we were spreading at a rate as to allow rapid drift, Mt. Everest would be springing up at a faster than an inch a year."
--Yes it did spring up faster than it does to day at a former date..
Really? Well, India would have to be moving damn fast to sprout such a tell mountain in around, oh, let’s say, 500-300 years.
quote:
"Prove to me that these magnitudes were possible- why don't wee see them today?"
--Lower mantle viscosity, a higher convection rate of the mantle from a heat produced out of high radionuclei decay rate in the outer core.
You certainly seem to have it all figured out- funny, though, how th Egyptians, who according to you came around 300 years after the flood, never mentioned incredibly fast rates of drift, high tectonic activity. Funny, also, how they managed to construct 100 foot high temples while the ground was shaking beneath their feet. I’ve been to those pyramids, I can tell you that no one could construct them while the plates were speeding across the planet in a sick game of bumper cars.
quote:
"Here is something of interest
"The Bible framework for earth history makes no statement about continental splitting, so it is unnecessary and unwise to take a "Biblical" position on the question. When God created the land and sea, the waters were "gathered together unto one place" (Genesis 1:9), which may imply one large ocean and one large land mass. The scripture which says "the earth was divided" in the days of Peleg (Genesis 10:25) is generally thought to refer to the Tower of Babel division (Genesis 11:1-9) and some suppose this included continental separation. To believe, however, that the continents moved thousands of miles during the Tower of Babel incident without causing another global flood requires a miracle. Similarly, it is doubtful whether the long day of Joshua can be explained naturalistically by plate tectonics."
from
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-032.htm
creationist site..."
--And?
This creationist site suggests that all continental drift occurred during the flood. What’s your response to that?
quote:
"Dinosaurs, clearly adapted for the cold (see previous references)"
--Please see top, this is not what is found, there is a lack of differentiation between these fossils and the only reason cold adaption is infered is because of the theory of gradualism.
I have reaffirmed my asserion with another reference. Go to top
quote:
"and coal, are found in the same areas but in different levels in the strata."
--Oh silly boy, Coal is found in vastly high quantities all throughout the globe in Carboniferous sediments, I do not see what your argument is attempting to support.
Coal comes first, and polar dinosaurs come second. Hot-cold-evolution
quote:
"Where would a polar dinosaur come from?"
--This requires that your 'polar dinosaurs' exist in your context.
"Why would it move into a warm, temperate to sub-tropical climate?"
--Plate tectonics.
So which scientist discovered that polar regions in Antarctica or Australia were moving north into warmer areas?
Perhaps you should give me some data.
quote:
"These fossils are higher in the strata than coal, indicating they came AFTER the coal"
--Applause*
So this means, my friend, that Antarctica was once warm (when it was part of the Pangaea), evident in the existence of coal, which requires warm and moist conditions. Antarctica moved gradually south, slowly enough to allow the appearance of newly-equipped species.
But you know better, judging by what data?
quote:
"and other warm-weather species."
--This is your fallacy.
Obviously, since it contradicts his divine word.
Maybe you could be so kind as to go into specifics.
quote:
"Antarctica was warm in the beginning. There were plants and animals appropriately adapted for these climates roaming the plains. Then the continent drfited south and became cooler. New and better adapted dinosaurs emerged, but other plants and animals died."
--Please see above.
Yeah- I’m just wrong.
quote:
"Don't you hate repeating yourself?"
--Yes I sertaintly do (you read my mind).
I’m just so stupid, you have to keep reiterating your basic points, backed up with data.
quote:
"I won't even bother responding to your arrogant and truly insulting statement."
--You set yourself up on that one, besides, I wasn't the one insulting you, you were.
Note the smiley face beside my statement. You jumped on the opportunity to insult my level of intelligence.
You really do think I am a stupid twelve year old, don’t you
quote:
"I could blast you with insults and rhetoric, but I promised to do otherwise."
--Yes, though I am sure you would not lower yourself to such an insignificant immature level.
Right. I made a promise that I would no longer be sarcastic or insulting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by TrueCreation, posted 03-20-2002 10:55 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by TrueCreation, posted 03-21-2002 6:36 PM quicksink has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 18 of 44 (7467)
03-21-2002 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by TrueCreation
03-20-2002 10:55 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Prove to me that these magnitudes were possible- why don't wee see them today?"
--Lower mantle viscosity, a higher convection rate of the mantle from a heat produced out of high radionuclei decay rate in the outer core.

Can you show how the conditions you describe came to be, why they weren't extant before the "flood", & why they no longer exist? Please don't dredge up Brown or Baumgardner again, they both assume initial conditions without evidential basis. I've been digging for this for several posts now culminating in message 253 at .
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=29&p=17
Saying you have the mechanism when all you have is a wish list of phenomena you need to be true is a bit rich, mate.
You need positive evidence that ;
1/ There was a lower mantle viscosity for a year, & provide a model that allows this to start & stop within the flood time scale.
2/ That radioactive decay was significantly different 4,500 years ago. Despite positive evidence that at high temperatures & pressure half lives show little to no variation. Also, you need to explain why this radioactive decay occurred during the flood year only. What CAUSED the rate of decay to increase for a year, then return to "normal" levels? It must've done, or the continents would've been hurtling around since creation, according to you.
If you can’t do this, point 1/ is falsified, & you STILL need to explain the alleged high rate of continental drift you assert occurred 4,500 years ago.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 03-21-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by TrueCreation, posted 03-20-2002 10:55 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by quicksink, posted 03-21-2002 7:56 AM mark24 has not replied
 Message 28 by TrueCreation, posted 03-21-2002 7:26 PM mark24 has replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 44 (7471)
03-21-2002 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by mark24
03-21-2002 6:04 AM


Could someone please tell me where I've gone wrong in believing that animals adapted to changing climates in Antarctica, as well as other continents.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by mark24, posted 03-21-2002 6:04 AM mark24 has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 20 of 44 (7474)
03-21-2002 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by TrueCreation
03-20-2002 10:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"wo wo wait a minute. Pangea? the super continent? 4500 years ago? this is a joke right?"
--Sorry to disappoint you Ludvan, this is no Joke. I have found throughout my reading, that is there is no problem, and is infact, more appealing to the young earth theory with the inclusion of Pangea, or a relatively similar super-continent.

I find it interesting that it is enough for you to look around until you find "no problem" in reconciling what science has discovered and what you have chosen to believe about nature from theat great scientific tome, the Christian Bible.
You do not care if it is a good explanation, much less the best explanation. It is only important that it doesn't contradict.
Oh, and you most certainly do reject evidence that contradicts the Bible.
For example, you have not explained why it is that there are no flowering plants below a certain level in the geologic strata. Remember, I am not talking about flowers. I am talking about flowering plants, like trees, grasses, cacti, etc.
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by TrueCreation, posted 03-20-2002 10:10 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 21 of 44 (7477)
03-21-2002 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by TrueCreation
03-20-2002 10:08 PM


quote:
--I am most interested in seeing how this is so. Please tell me Joe, what is it that I am missing or ignoring?
JM: Umm, I just told you. Please explain the physical process of magnetization in rocks, describe the physical process of how that magnetization is symmetric about the ridge. Describe why the sedimentary sequences on land show the same signature as in the ocean floor and finally, explain all of this in the context of a global flood. You see, you have an overly simplistic view of magnetostratigraphy and tectonics in general. Such things are not 'healed' on bulletin boards such as these. You are getting grief, not so much because of your young earth stance, but because you don't understand how your arguments actually negate themselves. So, I say once again, grab those references I gave you and learn a bit more about the subject. Then come back and you won't make the same mistakes. At the very least, your arguments will be more learned and you might get useful dialogue. Quite frankly, this is how your argument sounds to people who have studied the subject:
Imagine:
Person A: Hi, you don't look so good.
Person B: Well, I don't feel so good.
Person A: I've read a couple of medical books written for the layman and an introductory physiology book.
Person B: Gee, I don't know if that means you know what you're doing.
Person A: Sure, the bible says all you need is faith. Now let me have a look at you.
Person B: I dunno.
Person A: I remember my references saying to check lymph nodes for infection. Lemme try.
Person B: HEY! Those aren't my lymph nodes!
Person A: Well, maybe it's your gall bladder!
Person B: I thought the gall bladder was right here?
Person A: No, it's able to move quite a bit. Let's listen to your heart.
Person B: Aren't you using the wrong end of that thing?
and on it goes...
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by TrueCreation, posted 03-20-2002 10:08 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by mark24, posted 03-21-2002 9:21 AM Joe Meert has not replied
 Message 29 by TrueCreation, posted 03-21-2002 7:47 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 22 of 44 (7480)
03-21-2002 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Joe Meert
03-21-2002 9:07 AM


Joe,
So there are magnetic "anomalies" on land as well? Could you post a ref, or e-mail me with one,
thanks,
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 03-21-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Joe Meert, posted 03-21-2002 9:07 AM Joe Meert has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 44 (7493)
03-21-2002 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by LudvanB
03-21-2002 1:00 AM


"TC,whats the rate of continental shifting please?"
--The rate of 'continental shifting', or 'mid-oceanic sea-floor spreading', is currently estimated at about 1-2 inches a year, though other ridges have separation rates 5-10 times more rapid such as the East-Pacific rise. If I am in a car and I speed to 100mph on a slightly sloped road, and shift into neutral, I'm going to start to slow down, pretty soon you will be going quite slowely compaired to your rapid advancement some time back. So what is the argument?
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by LudvanB, posted 03-21-2002 1:00 AM LudvanB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Joe Meert, posted 03-21-2002 1:04 PM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 25 by LudvanB, posted 03-21-2002 2:32 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 26 by mark24, posted 03-21-2002 6:32 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 24 of 44 (7503)
03-21-2002 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by TrueCreation
03-21-2002 11:42 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"TC,whats the rate of continental shifting please?"
--The rate of 'continental shifting', or 'mid-oceanic sea-floor spreading', is currently estimated at about 1-2 inches a year, though other ridges have separation rates 5-10 times more rapid such as the East-Pacific rise. If I am in a car and I speed to 100mph on a slightly sloped road, and shift into neutral, I'm going to start to slow down, pretty soon you will be going quite slowely compaired to your rapid advancement some time back. So what is the argument?

JM: Your argument is internally inconsistent with the observations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by TrueCreation, posted 03-21-2002 11:42 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 44 (7509)
03-21-2002 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by TrueCreation
03-21-2002 11:42 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"TC,whats the rate of continental shifting please?"
--The rate of 'continental shifting', or 'mid-oceanic sea-floor spreading', is currently estimated at about 1-2 inches a year, though other ridges have separation rates 5-10 times more rapid such as the East-Pacific rise. If I am in a car and I speed to 100mph on a slightly sloped road, and shift into neutral, I'm going to start to slow down, pretty soon you will be going quite slowely compaired to your rapid advancement some time back. So what is the argument?

You havent read the post that just followed that one o take it. My argument in that one was what sort of evidence do you possess that no geologist on planet earth has,that 4500 years ago,the continents all started to move?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by TrueCreation, posted 03-21-2002 11:42 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by TrueCreation, posted 03-21-2002 7:48 PM LudvanB has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 26 of 44 (7529)
03-21-2002 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by TrueCreation
03-21-2002 11:42 AM


TC,
Message 18 pls.
Cheers,
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by TrueCreation, posted 03-21-2002 11:42 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 44 (7530)
03-21-2002 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by quicksink
03-21-2002 4:08 AM


"May I quote
It was once thought that dinosaurs were strictly tropical or sub-tropical animals that avoided the colder regions of the world. In the late 1970s/early 1980s dinosaur remains were discovered along the southern coast of Victoria, in southeastern Australia, an area that would have been within the Antarctic circle at the time the animals lived. In 1987 dinosaur remains were also found within the Arctic circle in North Antarctica."
--Lol, Exactly, they require gradualistic continental drift for this to be true. Have you not read your quote?
"Funny how that proof is undoubtedly based on incredibly in accurate methods of dating, yes, the same dating methods that indicate a very old planet."
--If you continue to assert that these relative dating methods are evidence of an indevidual interperetation of the old earth, than I find a great amount of ignorance in you. I should hope we do not continue asserting this. You would doubtedly even understand the evidence of such catacalysmic sea-floor spreading.
"Again, the Bible makes references to Israel, the Mideast, and the Mediterranean. Now let me describe to you the position of the continents half-way to today’s position:
North America resembles a lemonade jug with an alta california on the back. There is not Europe, nor is their a Arabian Peninsula. Africa is far from Asia and has a bite in its top. South America is attached to Africa by a narrow bridge of land. India is around present day South Africa, and Australia is still a part of Antarctica. Asia is completely deformed- The areas of the present day malay and thai peninsulas can be discerned as nothing more than a leg, about 15 degrees east of where it is now. The rest of Asia is unrecognizable.
Doesn’t sound like the Biblical world of Jesus, where Moses managed to part the non-existent red sea"
--Silly, the bible was written after the flood. I think I am well aware of the placement of the pangean continent.
"Had the Red Sea existed in Moses’s time, You would be squashing most continental drift in to a 2000 year time period. A little unrealistic."
--Very realistic, the seafloor spreading at the red sea, is quite slow, many orders of magnitude of decrease from say the east-pacific rise.
"Really? Well, India would have to be moving damn fast to sprout such a tell mountain in around, oh, let’s say, 500-300 years."
--Yes it would have.
"You certainly seem to have it all figured out- funny, though, how th Egyptians, who according to you came around 300 years after the flood, never mentioned incredibly fast rates of drift, high tectonic activity."
--Why would they, their not too close to any major spreading or continental collision.
"Funny, also, how they managed to construct 100 foot high temples while the ground was shaking beneath their feet."
--Even if there were, It would take an earthquake many magnitudes more catastrophic than todays most powerful to have any effect on such multi-ton bricks.
"I’ve been to those pyramids, I can tell you that no one could construct them while the plates were speeding across the planet in a sick game of bumper cars."
--You have a very large missunderstanding of plate tectonics, an in the very least, the model of rapid continental movement.
"
This creationist site suggests that all continental drift occurred during the flood. What’s your response to that?"
--I'd have to say they never read a geology book in their life (continental drift occurs in modern times):
quote:
Geographical - Some continents coasts would almost interlock if rearranged like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. for instance, South america fits into Africa.
Geological - Old mountain zones of matching ages appear as belts crossing southern continents if these are joined together in a certain way.
Climatic - Glacial deposits and rocks scratched by stones in moving ice show that ice coverd huge tracts of southern continents 300 million years ago. This suggests these places lay in polar gegions.
Paleomagnetic - Alignments of magnetized particles in old rocks show that southern continents all lay in polar regions.
--Reference - The field guid to Geology - David Lambert; pg. 46
--The most intense drifting would have occured during the flood though yes.
"Coal comes first, and polar dinosaurs come second. Hot-cold-evolution"
--Coal beds are composed of organic 'plants', not 'warm dinosaurs' let alone any dinosaurs. And again, coal beds are found all throughout the world in Carboniferous sediments, thats a good 180 million years of (assumption with gradualistic) geologic time.
"So which scientist discovered that polar regions in Antarctica or Australia were moving north into warmer areas?"
--Some clips from Encarta for your convenience:
quote:
The theory of plate tectonics was formulated during the early 1960s, and it revolutionized the field of geology. Scientists have successfully used it to explain many geological events, such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions as well as mountain building and the formation of the oceans and continents.
Plate tectonics arose from an earlier theory proposed by German scientist Alfred Wegener in 1912. Looking at the shapes of the continents, Wegener found that they fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. Using this observation, along with geological evidence he found on different continents, he developed the theory of continental drift, which states that today's continents were once joined together into one large landmass.
Geologists of the 1950s and 1960s found evidence supporting the idea of tectonic plates and their movement. They applied Wegener's theory to various aspects of the changing earth and used this evidence to confirm continental drift. By 1968 scientists integrated most geologic activities into a theory called the New Global Tectonics, or more commonly, Plate Tectonics.
"Plate Tectonics." Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2001. 1993-2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
And about the the first theoretical scientist to assert this hypothesis of continental drift:
quote:
Wegener, Alfred (1880-1930), German meteorologist, noted chiefly for advocating the theory of continental drift at a time when the technological means for proving the theory had not yet been developed. Wegener served as professor of meteorology at Graz University from 1924 to 1930. Drawing on several lines of evidence, he rejuvenated the idea that all the continents were once joined as one landmass, which he named Pangaea. He further proposed that this ancestral supercontinent had begun breaking up approximately 200 million years earlier into a northern portion, which he called Laurasia, and a southern portion, named Gondwanaland by the Austrian geologist Eduard Suess. Wegener's theories, described in The Origin of Continents and Oceans (1915; trans. 1924), did not receive scientific corroboration, however, until the 1960s when oceanographic research revealed the phenomenon known as seafloor spreading. Wegener died during an expedition to Greenland.
"Wegener, Alfred." Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2001. 1993-2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
"Perhaps you should give me some data."
--I don't know what you would use it for, I hope were not 'side stepping', isn't that the Creationists job? :\
"So this means, my friend, that Antarctica was once warm (when it was part of the Pangaea), evident in the existence of coal, which requires warm and moist conditions."
--Actually, coal does not require 'warm and moist conditions' for formation, it requires pressure and heat.
"Antarctica moved gradually south, slowly enough to allow the appearance of newly-equipped species.
But you know better, judging by what data?"
--judging by the fact of a very flawed missunderstanding.
"Obviously, since it contradicts his divine word."
--I need not excavate scripture to prove anything here, it is apparent enough itself..
"Maybe you could be so kind as to go into specifics."
--specifics on what? I have shown you why you have a missunderstanding on what your quote says.
"I’m just so stupid, you have to keep reiterating your basic points, backed up with data."
--Your giving me the data, and your missunderstanding it yourself, I need not to do any research at this point.
"Note the smiley face beside my statement. You jumped on the opportunity to insult my level of intelligence."
--If I wished to do so, I would have done so. I said 'no comment'. I think I was being nice, most people on these boards would take the hit.
"You really do think I am a stupid twelve year old, don’t you"
--No, just alot to learn.
"Right. I made a promise that I would no longer be sarcastic or insulting."
-- Allright then.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by quicksink, posted 03-21-2002 4:08 AM quicksink has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 44 (7534)
03-21-2002 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by mark24
03-21-2002 6:04 AM


"1/ There was a lower mantle viscosity for a year, & provide a model that allows this to start & stop within the flood time scale."
--Its not exactly that low viscosity was a one time event, that is, that it was normal (relatively as today) pre-flood, and it suddenly jumped off the scale and then settled down post-flood. It was more as, post flood, heat accumulated since its creation by effects such as mantle pressure, and isotopic disintegration of elements such as uranium and thorium. This heat as it accumulated would produce more and more pressure and from its heat and pressure it would have been eating away at weak points in the earths lithosphere (most of the lithosphere would have been a thicker continental equivalent density mass). Magma upwelling would have been chewing away at the crust and was either broken by this alone, or by impacting bodies transfering their energy to the ground and rifting nearby magma upwelling sources, which also would have contributed little heat early on.
--I further explain in #2
"2/ That radioactive decay was significantly different 4,500 years ago. Despite positive evidence that at high temperatures & pressure half lives show little to no variation."
--Not different, though at an increasing rate of decay because more nuclei would have been present to have yet to release their energy in desintegration. I don't think I would be to argue with how decay would have been irregular, in this scence.
"Also, you need to explain why this radioactive decay occurred during the flood year only. What CAUSED the rate of decay to increase for a year, then return to "normal" levels?"
--Not just during the flood, this would have been when lithosphere was becoming increasingly thin and the reason for higher decay rates is from higher quantities of nuclei to decay.
"It must've done, or the continents would've been hurtling around since creation, according to you."
--Continents wouldn't have been hurtling around because the lithosphere would have been much to stable.
"If you can’t do this, point 1/ is falsified, & you STILL need to explain the alleged high rate of continental drift you assert occurred 4,500 years ago."
--Newely researched points, though I expect to add on to this hypothesis as I do more reading.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by mark24, posted 03-21-2002 6:04 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by mark24, posted 03-21-2002 9:55 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 44 (7536)
03-21-2002 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Joe Meert
03-21-2002 9:07 AM


"JM: Umm, I just told you. Please explain the physical process of magnetization in rocks"
--If I may quote from a book reference:
quote:
All materials are magnetized when they cool to below their Curie point. They then carry the magnetic orientation of the Earth's field at that time. Igneous rocks, formed from cooling magma, therefore show the direction of the Earth's field at the point when they solidify into rock. In sedimentary rocks the process is more subtle. Provided there are tranquil conditions, magnetized particles of sediment will orientate themselves in the direction of the prevailing magnetic field. As they fall slowly through water the tiny particles of magnetized mud and sand will line up. When the sediment forms into rock this direction is preserved. Unfortunately rocks are often reheated by turbulent events around them, and their magnetization can be destroyed and reformed many times. Geologists have to ensure that the magnetization they are measuring is of the original field, when the rock was first formed.
"describe the physical process of how that magnetization is symmetric about the ridge."
--Because at the time of cooling, as explained above, after curie point is reached, the magnetic orientation of the current magnetic polarity is 'set', or 'locked'.
"Describe why the sedimentary sequences on land show the same signature as in the ocean floor"
--Because the rate of sea-floor spreading is a continuous effect that took place durring deposition of sedimentary deposits.
"and finally, explain all of this in the context of a global flood."
--The rate of seafloor spreading was a continuous action taking place during deposition of various sedimentary deposits. Because of this, you can come up with a relatively good estimate for how continents drifted through this process.
"You see, you have an overly simplistic view of magnetostratigraphy and tectonics in general."
--No, it is because we were unable to engage into such a discussion on paleomagnetism.
"Such things are not 'healed' on bulletin boards such as these. You are getting grief, not so much because of your young earth stance, but because you don't understand how your arguments actually negate themselves."
--Tell me how this is invalid. I have a fairly good education on paleomagnetismic properties and characteristics throughout geologic time.
"So, I say once again, grab those references I gave you and learn a bit more about the subject. Then come back and you won't make the same mistakes."
--I have not seen myself make a mistake within this hypothesis.
"At the very least, your arguments will be more learned and you might get useful dialogue. Quite frankly, this is how your argument sounds to people who have studied the subject:"
--I would beg to differ.
--As a good note, I would advise you to keep arrogance to a minimum, when you make your assertions you make them with such convidence, which isn't the most wise thing to do. Something (edited; some people around the forums) have done many times over.
----------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-21-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Joe Meert, posted 03-21-2002 9:07 AM Joe Meert has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 44 (7537)
03-21-2002 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by LudvanB
03-21-2002 2:32 PM


"You havent read the post that just followed that one o take it. My argument in that one was what sort of evidence do you possess that no geologist on planet earth has,that 4500 years ago,the continents all started to move?"
--See my response to Mark24's post 18.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by LudvanB, posted 03-21-2002 2:32 PM LudvanB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by LudvanB, posted 03-21-2002 8:03 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024