Evolution in the Anarctic

[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=17Saying 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]

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]

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

​

"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

---

What evidence do you have that uranium & thorium was at greater levels 4,500 years ago in the mantle than today, given the high half lives it would seem to me that the levels wouldn’t be much less than today, & when you add the fusion factor in, would make for a relative constant. So why would heat in the mantle be higher in temperature then than now?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"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.

​

---

Again, why were there so many uranium & thorium isotopes present to cause this runaway heating, but they’re no longer there? You say half lives were the same, so we wouldn’t appreciably have much less U & Th than today, as I say, once you add the fusion factor, it’s not much less at all. So why did the heat build up? Are you seriously suggesting that continental crust is such a good insulator? Can you back this up if you are suggesting it? Given this is a process that was in operation from -6,000 to -4,500 years it would've caused a slow increase, melting the lower crust/lithosphere thereby allowing greater heat to escape, allowing an equilibrium to be reached, so it still doesn't explain a rapid 40 day "gone garrety" flood.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.