|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,482 Year: 3,739/9,624 Month: 610/974 Week: 223/276 Day: 63/34 Hour: 2/4 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Hydroplates unchallenged young earth explains Tectonics shortcomings! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
simple writes: Percy writes: Well, yes, that's true, and it's because Walt's ideas were constructed with the the goal of being consistent with young earth preconceptions And Darwin's against it. Darwin's against young earth preconceptions? Yes, of course, but it makes no sense, given that you disagree with Darwin, that you would offer this as rebuttal, so I guess I don't know what you're saying. I see that in a couple of the replies to you people assumed you misspoke and that you really meant Darwin was against an ancient earth, and of course that is not true. As others have described, Darwin desired far more antiquity than other scientists, Lord Kelvin foremost among them, would allow him at the time.
simple writes: Percy writes: Walt proposes that this water collected in a huge reservoir beneath what became a mid-oceanic ridge I believe he says we'll assume it was already there and start from that premise. That's the way the world, in other words was made, water under in a separate layer. So why do you say Walt says it collects? And why only under ridge? it was everywhere. Could this basic flaw in your understanding of his theory be why you think it's silly? (you're on the ropes here) I'm only replying to what you've told us about Walt's views. And I didn't say Walt's views were silly, I said they were falsified. As I told you in another thread, the views of many great scientists have been falsified, including Archimedes and Newton. That doesn't make their views silly. Of course, having your views falsified doesn't make you a great scientist, either. So you say the water wasn't just beneath mid-oceanic ridges, but everywhere. This is a far greater amount of water than if it were just beneath the ridges, and it causes a problem that was only minor before to become huge: where's all this water now, since only the water that burst forth from beneath the ridges escaped. The rest of the water should still be there beneath the earth's surface, but it isn't. The issue I raised still applies. While the earth *does* contain huge amounts of water, it does not tend to collect in huge reservoirs. It is all mixed in with the magma that lies beneath earth's surface and extends down to the liquid metallic core. Walt proposes that some of this water was in a huge reservoir beneath what became a mid-oceanic ridge and burst forth causing runaway plate motion. What caused the water that is usually distributed throughout the earth's interior to gather in narrow strips?
simple writes: Percy writes: Now raise the edge of the paper towel to a height of 1/2 of an inch. This corresponds to a height of 400 miles in Walt's model? Does the paper towel move? It doesn't, does it? this is a good point. No age assumptions here. If what you say is true, even with a non evoltionist editor, you guys would have a caake walk in a debate with the dr. However at first glance, several miles of rock sliding sounds firmer than tissue! Rock is much firmer than paper towels, but the paper towel is only a model for a plate thousands of miles in extent. At that scale the rock is weaker than a paper towel. This is because the strength of the material can only increase by the square (cross-sectional area), while the weight increases by the cube (volume). Skyscrapers are a good example of the strength of materials on a large scale. Perhaps you've had the opportunity to see a solid steel girder, perhaps even examined one or touched one? They are very strong, and it is very difficult to imagine them bending. Skyscrapers are built from steel girders, and if you ever went up in a tall skyscraper, perhaps the World Trade Center or the Sears Tower, then you know from the talk they give you on the elevator ride up that the towers sway back and forth 10 feet or so in high winds. That's because on a large scale the steel girders are very flexible. And on a large scale, so is rock. And the tectonic plates are not tiny like skyscrapers, which are less than 1/4 of a mile tall, but are huges, thousands of miles in extent. They are very flexible on that scale, even more flexible than a paper towel. And unlike steel, rock is extremely brittle. It shatters when subjected to great forces. Water bursting forth to push the edge of a tectonic plate 500 or a thousand miles into space would shatter the rock of the plate. Even if, for the sake of argument, we pretend the tectonic wouldn't crumble, there would be massive debris blown from the ridge, and it would turn on up the land on both sides of the ridge. Rocks that have been under great stress have particular analytical profiles. No such rocks have ever been found. And the rocks near the ridge (they'd have to be near the ridge, since motion of 2-6 inches per year for 6000 years is only about 5 miles) show no signs of being bent and stressed, either. In fact, even though this huge explosion supposedly happened only 6000 years ago, no evidence of it has ever turned up. And you still haven't addressed the original point. The friction of the paper towel against the counter is less than the friction of the plate against the underlying magma, yet when you lift the edge of the paper towel a distance equal to 800 miles, the paper towel doesn't budge. Even if you could blow the edge of a tectonic plate 800 miles into space without it coming apart, the tectonic plate would not begin sliding 10 miles a day because the friction is far too great.
simple writes: Percy writes: One reason Walt's ideas are not accepted within the scientific community, and in fact why people like Walt don't even bother to submit their ideas to scientific scrutiny... sounds good, but we feel the community you mention is so riddled with the 'old age' disease that they are 'senile' and, till they choose to get better, would be in no state to judge sound reason or evidence! In science, issues are argued using evidence and insight, not name calling. If it were the practice of science to reply to this in kind, saying perhaps that your community is immature and ignorant, then science would never make any progress, it would become just people calling each other names. The point I was making was that scientists are not at liberty to ignore evidence. The current geological models are accepted because they explain the available evidence, and that includes the radiometric evidence. If you're going to reject the radiometric evidence then you have to argue based on that evidence, or upon such other evidence that you have. But if you're doing science, you cannot simply choose to ignore it. So if you're to have a complete model, one capable of competing with modern views within geology, then you must consider the radiometric data, even if you do so only to falsify it.
simple writes: Percy writes: The depth of sediments on a stretch of ocean floor increase gradually over time, so the deeper the sediment, the older the ocean floor. This approach still yields a interval for reversals of about a half million years now we're talking!! Deep sediments! Gee- must've taken millions of years to accumulate since God's flood didn't dump them! ha This isn't an answer, but just a restatement of your opinion. Your supposed to be advancing arguments in support of your position, not just repeating your position. We already know what you believe. It has already been described for you how floods leave very large grained debris. In very violent floods the grain size can be boulders the size of houses. What we instead find on the seafloor is very fine grained sediment, and in depths that would have taken millions of years to deposit. We find no deposits that resemble a flood.
simple writes: Percy writes: Do you really believe that what's taught in science class should be set by state statute if the state statute says teach evolution I say dump the school system! Hope that answers your question! Well, if you'd like to discuss it, then open a thread Education and Creation/Evolution forum. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5613 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
The article said "up to" 90 percent of what comes out of a volcano is water, though its probably hard to measure, however up to 90 percent for a dome building volcano like Mt. St. Helens seems correct, initially up to 90 percent would of came out, but as Mt. St. Helens continued to erupt upward I can accept these percentages started to drop, until it stopped erupting, and the lavas resealed the dome, etc... I kinda agree a self venting volcano (not a dome builder) would be more in line with lower percentages, though it probably hard to measure the exact percentages, that comes up dissolved within the magma, kinda makes me think of the geisers of Yellowstone that would build up for the explosion, old faithful, is Mt. St. Helens building up for another explosion, deep under the mantle, water and lava, etc...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5702 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: No, as the links I showed you it is something that can be measured and it is not 90%. In fact the claim by AIG is a lie and you are therefore wrong (Is there any reason to be polite about this, mod?). Here's a link to the United States Geological Survey:
quote: 4% is not even in the ballpark with the 90% claim. Here is a more technical analysis of St. Helen's magma composition: http://www.mineralogie.uni-goettingen.de/webb/BV97.pdf and a third link discussing water content of magmas: What makes volcanoes explode? UC Berkeley geophysicists say its the bubbles – Innovations Report I find something extremely odd in your answers. You unequivocally accept material supplied to you by creationists where many times there is no experimental data cited to support the claims (this is a good example). When someone supplies actual measurements, you dismiss it with a handwave. Not much can be accomplished in such a discussion. So let me ask you the following. Do you think it's important to support claims with data?
quote: JM: Care to support this with data?
quote: JM: Yellowstone has nothing to do with the eruption character of the magmas in St. helen's. You are confusing the steam in groundwater with magmatic composition. Water content in magmas does not approach the values you uncritically cite (in fact there is no observational evidence to support this statement). Take some time to formulate your answers. Provide data rather than some ispe dixit assertion. Cheers Joe Meert [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 02-08-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1728 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Your vote of confidence is noted. According to an old text (Hyndman, 1972), at Hawaii, the water content of tholeitic basalt varies from 1 to 2.5% in the early phases and then drops of to 0.2 to 0.7% in later, gas-poor phases of the eruptions. You can compare that to other contents given by Joe above. These are relatively dry magmas, which is evidenced by their minearlogy. The water erupting from hydrothermal vents is usually meteoric even at the mid-ocean ridges. This supported by the presence of altered MORBs and isotopic evidence that I do not have handy right now. I'll check into it further.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1728 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Here is a diagram from the vents project that show how they think hydrothermal solutions circulate at the mid-ocean ridges. Look at some of the pages and look for diagrams. I think the chemistry page has one.
Vents Around the World - Dive & Discover
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5613 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Here's a picture of the plume rising upward, how do you measure the amount of water in an exploding plume, etc...It could well be up to 90 percent, even though it's not the initial eruption, etc...
P.S. It seemed they were measuring the magma, not the plume exploding upward, etc... Mt. St. Helens During? [This message has been edited by whatever, 02-08-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1728 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: If it is so hard to measure, how did AIG get 90%?
quote: Yes, that would be pertinent to the subject of this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5702 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: You are wrong. The eruptions are 96% black licorice. This has as much observational support as your claim. Care to refute my assertion that the eruptions are initially 96% black licorice? Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5613 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
How does one get close enough to the plume to know one way or the other, to refute your black licorice claim, etc...
[This message has been edited by whatever, 02-08-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1728 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: THe same way AIG got there to measure the 90% water!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5613 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
The first part of the explosion would be a Phreatic eruption, steam driven explosions, if there is any amount of a black licorice, it would be within the secondary plinian eruptions, etc...
Volcano Hazards Program
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5702 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
Nope, the whole thing is basically black licorice
ANSWERS IN URANTIA I've now supplied way more evidence for my claim than has AIG or you in their stead. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
Darwin's against young earth preconceptions to make a long story shot Darwin's assuption of long ages.
where's all this water now, since only the water that burst forth from beneath the ridges escaped. The rest of the water should still be there beneath the earth's surface, but it isn't. Now we're talking. You are starting to address what Walt is really saying. Now remember I haven't totally embraced this yet and may not have his idea perfect, but I think it goes something like this. Very great pressure ripped a seam. like in a baseball (ridges) all around the globe, starting in the Atlantic-shooting out the miles deep ocean of water the earth was sort of floating on, supported also by pillars. A dominoe effect began to shatter the pillars, the ruptered area eroding quickly more and more and the released water in some cases supersonically shooting into space starting the asteroid belt-and killing all life on earth (but 8 people & basic animal kinds on ark) as the "fountain" widened displaced molten material from the other side of the earh (noe ring of fire) kinda caved in a little as a natural effect of the rising on the other side of earth's sphere (Atlantic--) then as it raised up, the plates on either side slid away, on a bed of a lot of the water still under there, (reduced friction-gravity) but the ridge sealed up again, stopping the flow entirely-some of the water hitting space froze, coming down as a mucky hail, freezing mammoths, etc. then, as waters stopped, recession phase of flood began and present ocean beds exposed, with much lower sea level. (in places you could cross by land!-hence animal migration. A century or 2 later (Peleg's day) when "the earth was devided" (Atlantis sunk-Walt doesn't mention this!) the sea levels rose deviding continents by water. OK I think I got the basics here.Your post is long-it's late- later
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5702 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: All the while, in the Rockies (God's little Eden) we have the waxing and waning of water changing depths slightly causing multiple layers of photo-temperature-environment sensitive reefs to grow. Oh, what a tangled web.... Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
simple writes: Now we're talking. You are starting to address what Walt is really saying. We'll address whatever you tell us about Walt's views. As I've said before, we can't address what you don't tell us. About the scenario you describe, that's quite a story! Back in the 19th century when geologists first began uncovering the evidence for what events shaped the modern earth, they were expecting to find evidence of Noah's flood. What they instead found was evidence for a very ancient earth. They found no evidence for anything you describe, and that has remained true right up until today. Specifically:
Science works by forming a hypothesis for how something might have happened, and then seeking evidence in support of the hypothesis. You've got the hypothesis part down, but you not only have no evidence supporting it, it is contradicted by all the evidence we *do* have. You didn't address all the other issues of my previous post:
--Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024