Hydroplates unchallenged young earth explains Tectonics shortcomings!

Er ... that's not a prediction. A prediction would be an explanation of how and why the Hawaiian islands came to be as they are, based on his "theory".

Piece o' cake. Plate motions are being measured regularly by several means.This is from Geodetic VLBI, measured by Very Long Baseline Interferometry from satellites:

(Click for full size image)The raw data and detailed explanations and lots more maps are available at the above-referenced URL.{AdminAsgara fixed the width but made the figure difficult to read. For a more readable version see http://lupus.gsfc.nasa.gov/plots/maps/jpg/Pacific.jpg. The length and direction of the purple lines indicate the differences between the measured motion and the motion that would be seen if the plate was moving as a rigid body. The purple lines are much shorter than the lines that indicate the overall direction and amount of motion, proving that the plate is moving almost like a rigid body (and deforming a little) and carrying the Hawaiian Islands along with it.}And, from UNAVCO Brochure Online with Figures Available, GPS measurements: Figure 1 - Motions of GPS sites in ITRF-94 reference frame, after (3). Note Hawaiian site motion along the island chain, as expected because these GPS motions essentially correspond to present day absolute plate motions in a fixed hotspot reference frame (2).[This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 02-06-2004][This message has been edited by JonF, 02-06-2004] [Fix width of jpeg. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 02-06-2004]What's the record for the most edits? My latest one is to restoer what Admin over-wrote.[This message has been edited by JonF, 02-06-2004]

That link leads to a GSA Field Guide. I think the correct link is GSA Today: Volume 14, Number 2, February 2004.

I am not a real geologist, but I occasionally play one on TV {grin}. I believe that the plates are "riding on" the mantle, which is essentially all solid but plastic. Perhaps Joe or Bill will correct one or both of us.

I'll be glad to point out your errors and misconceptions ... after you support your assertions: Seven pages and we don't have any specifics from you. Exactly how does the hydroplate theory explain scattered undersea volcanoes? How does the hydroplate theory explain the Hawaiian Islands? \What other things are better explained by hydroplates?[This message has been edited by JonF, 02-06-2004]

A premise that is contradicted by the evidence.

No, you've got the burden of proof confused. You and Walt are claiming the hydroplate thory; it's your responisibility to prove that water under the plates is involved in crsrtal transport. Unsupported assertion. How much friction would there be? Liquids are never solids, and vice versa. The mantle is solid, below the mantle is liquid. But he mantle is plastic, meaning that it can be deformed permanently and "flow" slowly. By plastic shear deformation, the easiest kind of plastic deformation to induce. It doesn't require any volume change or change in elevation, so it doesn't require a lot of energy input. But it's very slow in hot rock. The existence of water below the surface of the earth is not evidence for the hydroplate "theory".

You made a big deal about whether or not the Hawaiian Islands are moving, and we supplied plenty of proof that they are; please reply to http://EvC Forum: Hydroplates unchallenged young earth explains Tectonics shortcomings! -->EvC Forum: Hydroplates unchallenged young earth explains Tectonics shortcomings! and tell us what you think. Correct. However, it is an assumption, contradicted by the evidence, that there is water in the pools required for Walt's "theory". We have very good evidence of what's down there from "imaging" by analyzing the transmission of earthquake waves. Nope. The hydroplate "theory" is a lot more than "there's water down there" and requires a lot more evidence than the existence of water below the surface of the Earth. Absolutely incorrect. You should not make up stuff; you're really bad at it. There is no hydraulic lubricating agent and nobody has held such a premise in the last 75 years or so.The evidence shows clearly that there is no hydraulic lubricating agent; the plates are not moving on any kind of liquid. The plates are moving by slow shear deformation of plastic solid rock and incredibly slow convection currents.From UNB GEOLOGY 1001 Lecture 2 - The Dynamic Earth - Plate Tectonics:

quote:

---

the physical properties of rocks change significantly with increasing temperature. At low temperatures rocks are comparatively strong and behave in a brittle fashion. In other words, when a force is applied to a cold rock, it will resist the force until its strength is exceeded and then it will break. However, when the temperature increases, rocks become plastic solids. In contrast to the behavior of brittle solids, plastic solids flow when force is applied to them. Due to the temperature grdaient in the Earth, the rocks at the surface of the Earth (the upper crust) are cold and behave in a brittle fashion, while rocks deep in the Earth are hot and behave in a plastic fashion.

---

It is not "less compressible than your dense basalt liquid rocks". Water is more compressible than solid (but plastic) or liquid rocks. False deduction from a false premise.

Hey, Joe, any comments on isostatic rebound vis a vis Walt and/or Baumgardner? It seems to me that hydroplate "theory" can't explain isostatic rebound, but I'm not positive.

Then you didn't look hard. The VLBI site I supplied includes all that information. Or you could actuall got to a library and reqad the technical literature referenced by the various web pages.[qsd]I have no problem with the liquid rock being plastic[/qs]Nor do I. But the point is that the solid but hot rock of the mantle is also plastic.I won't bother with the rest of your gibberish. How do you explain the formation of the Hawaiian Islands?[This message has been edited by JonF, 02-07-2004]

So, what's happening today?

Error again. The young earth theory was dead before Dasrwin and before radioactivity was discovered; see http://EvC Forum: What is the basis for a Creationist argument against Evolution? -->EvC Forum: What is the basis for a Creationist argument against Evolution?. Darwin just collected his data and proposed his theory. He was bothered by the fact that, according to the thinking of his time, the Earth was much much older than 6,000 years but apparently not old enough for his theory. After that we discovered how old the Earth really is. Really? If so, that's called "making up the major foundation of his theory" or pulling it out of your ... maybe I shouldn't say it. Either way, you don't base a scientific theory on making up evidence. He could speculate aboput what might happen if the water collected in a huge reservoir beneath what became a mid-oceanic ridge, but it isn't a theory unitl there's some evidence. How about some evidence that it happened? He spoke of paper towels, not tissue. How about at second glance? What's the comparative stiffness of the two? Since there are no corresponding deposits on or under land therefore no, your suposed flood didn't dump them there. The statutes require teaching science. Made up fairy tales like Walts's aren't science.

Double post, sorry[This message has been edited by JonF, 02-07-2004]

Hum, that's not my understanding, although you're probably mcuh more espert than I am. I am, of course, aware of the various pre-radioisotope-dating estimates listed in "The Age of the Earth", including estimates in the millions and billions of years in teh first half of the nineteenth century.Hoewever, I have found Dr. Andrew MacRae to be a trustworthy source, and wonder if you have any comments on the folowing, from Hugh Miller -- 19th-century creationist geologist:

quote:

---

Perhaps of particular interest to present-day creationists, however, is the way that Miller also discusses the theological issues. Many of the points Miller raises will be completely familiar to anyone who has followed the newsgroup talk.origins for a while, no matter what their perspective on the issues discussed there. Also, Miller's "The Testimony of the Rocks" book, published in 1857, provides useful historical documentation of the state of geology and the "global flood" model a few years prior to the publication of Darwin's theory of evolution in "The Origin of Species" in 1859. A common claim of some modern "young Earth global flood" creationists is that the geologic time scale and fossil succession is somehow "circular" or otherwise dependent upon evolutionary theory. A simple reading of Miller's discussion, prior to the proposal of evolutionary theory, makes it obvious that before Darwin's theory was published, the basic fossil succession and geologic time scale was well-established by completely independent means, even in the opinion of creationist geologists of that time. Likewise, the theory of a global flood as an explanation for the Earth's geology had been completely abandoned by almost all scientists familiar with geology, including the creationist ones. It was not consistent with the evidence known even then.

---

[This message has been edited by JonF, 02-07-2004]

You'r still just waving your arms and ignoring the evidence.Look at http://EvC Forum: Hydroplates unchallenged young earth explains Tectonics shortcomings! -->EvC Forum: Hydroplates unchallenged young earth explains Tectonics shortcomings!. No mater what you think of age determinations, there is a correlation there that must be explained. And why is the amoutnof erosion on each island, and every indication of age, correlated with distance from Kiluea?