Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Catastrophic Plate Tectonics - Fact or Fiction?
Philip
Member (Idle past 4800 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 226 of 301 (224986)
07-20-2005 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Joe Meert
07-20-2005 4:37 PM


Re: Looking for evidence
Thank you!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Joe Meert, posted 07-20-2005 4:37 PM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Joe Meert, posted 07-20-2005 7:02 PM Philip has replied

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5758 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 227 of 301 (224990)
07-20-2005 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Philip
07-20-2005 6:51 PM


Re: Looking for evidence
I have no frigging idea what you mean. Then again defending your statements does not appear to be a strong point. Can you supply some substance please?
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Philip, posted 07-20-2005 6:51 PM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Philip, posted 07-20-2005 7:24 PM Joe Meert has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34047
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 228 of 301 (224991)
07-20-2005 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Philip
07-20-2005 6:16 PM


Re: Creationist Bias
please refute
Ken Ham is an idiot and full of shit.
Seriously, there is no need for anything like CPT. The only reason anything like that is brought up is that Creationists are generally very easy marks. They're not very bright and will shell out money for just about any snakeoil remedy that claims to support the Biblical Creation myth.
That's pretty much it. All the CBN and TBN and ACLJ and Moral Majority and Ken Ham and AIG and Discovery Institute and WAR and Gene Scott and on and on, exist for is that they see a good thing. They know that they have a gravy train, that they can milk the cow of evangelical and fundamental creationists and they'll never get sent to jail like other cons. It's the safest con job out there and if they can keep their zipper closed they will do okay. Even if they don't keep the zipper closed they usually get away with the theft.
But under it all, they are all still just crooks playing the rubes.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Philip, posted 07-20-2005 6:16 PM Philip has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by AdminNosy, posted 07-20-2005 7:12 PM jar has replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 229 of 301 (224995)
07-20-2005 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by jar
07-20-2005 7:03 PM


Re: Creationist Bias
An interesting commentary but not on topic here Jar. thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by jar, posted 07-20-2005 7:03 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Philip, posted 07-20-2005 7:20 PM AdminNosy has not replied
 Message 232 by jar, posted 07-20-2005 7:21 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4800 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 230 of 301 (224998)
07-20-2005 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by ringo
07-20-2005 4:27 PM


Re: Any ideas?
Ringo, I told you what I seem to presently *know* about PT; the past is open for speculation. I detect Percy wants me to leave this thread.
(Off topic: But as far as respecting any one-sided 'TalkOrigins-rant', you don't expect me to be "Christ-like".)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by ringo, posted 07-20-2005 4:27 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by ringo, posted 07-20-2005 8:09 PM Philip has not replied
 Message 236 by edge, posted 07-20-2005 9:21 PM Philip has replied
 Message 237 by Percy, posted 07-20-2005 9:23 PM Philip has replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4800 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 231 of 301 (224999)
07-20-2005 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by AdminNosy
07-20-2005 7:12 PM


Re: Creationist Bias
Thank you sir.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by AdminNosy, posted 07-20-2005 7:12 PM AdminNosy has not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34047
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 232 of 301 (225000)
07-20-2005 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by AdminNosy
07-20-2005 7:12 PM


Re: Creationist Bias
Yes boss. I'll try to do better. Sorry. Mea Culpa.
To try to return towards the topic, there is no reason that's been given that I know of to even consider CPT. The questions I'd ask are:
  • what is not explained by conventional PT?
  • what does CPT explain that is not explained by PT?
  • is there any reason to even dream about CPT as anything other than an interesting model?
Why would anyone even bring CPT up?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by AdminNosy, posted 07-20-2005 7:12 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4800 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 233 of 301 (225002)
07-20-2005 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Joe Meert
07-20-2005 7:02 PM


Re: Looking for evidence
(Off topic: I read your site, you refute magnetic reversals and you refer to the one-sided TalkOrigins website!#?; you lost me)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Joe Meert, posted 07-20-2005 7:02 PM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Joe Meert, posted 07-20-2005 8:01 PM Philip has not replied

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5758 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 234 of 301 (225008)
07-20-2005 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Philip
07-20-2005 7:24 PM


Re: Looking for evidence
Ok, then how do you decide Ken Ham's opinion is worth squat? For the record, I do not refute reversals, I refute the Young earth creationists explanation for magnetic reversals. It really would be good for you to read for comprehension.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Philip, posted 07-20-2005 7:24 PM Philip has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 490 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 235 of 301 (225011)
07-20-2005 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Philip
07-20-2005 7:19 PM


Re: Any ideas?
Philip writes:
the past is open for speculation.
That's your problem: you're speculating while the geologists are studying the evidence. What makes you think your speculations are as good as their studies?
But as far as respecting any one-sided 'TalkOrigins-rant', you don't expect me to be "Christ-like".
Sorry, I don't follow any of that. English translation? (And you're the only one who has brought up talkorigins.)

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Philip, posted 07-20-2005 7:19 PM Philip has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1784 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 236 of 301 (225015)
07-20-2005 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Philip
07-20-2005 7:19 PM


Re: Any ideas?
...I detect Percy wants me to leave this thread.
Not sure why that would be. You are personally dismantling and discrediting the entire YEC argument for CPT.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Philip, posted 07-20-2005 7:19 PM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Philip, posted 07-20-2005 10:02 PM edge has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22606
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 237 of 301 (225016)
07-20-2005 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Philip
07-20-2005 7:19 PM


Re: Any ideas?
Philip writes:
Ringo, I told you what I seem to presently *know* about PT; the past is open for speculation. I detect Percy wants me to leave this thread.
Well, yes, in a way. I believe your level of understanding is naive, but there's nothing wrong with that. The reason I think your participation in this thread will not be productive is that rather than seeking understanding of modern geology, which is what you periodically claim, you're actually determined to maintain your naivete. I haven't seen a much indication that you've comprehended what's been explained, and I don't see why there's anything to be gained from us repeating the same explanations or you reading them.
I think it's time for you do to start pulling your own share of the intellectual weight here. If you're going to pose as a seeker of knowledge, then somehow indicate to us that the knowledge offered isn't going in one ear and out the other. I'm not asking you to believe it or accept it. Just understand it so you don't keep asking the same questions.
You can't be a podiatrist without taking an incredibly healthy dose of science classes. I just looked up the undergraduate requirements for entering a medical school for podiatry, and it lists Calculus, General Biology, General Chemistry, Organic Chemistry and Physics. Just getting through organic chemistry and physics means that your ignorance is a pose or you're not really a podiatrist. It's not that studying to be a doctor would teach you any geology, but it would at least teach you how to think, and you're not showing much indication of that ability.
Sorry to be so blunt and rude, Philip, but the discrepancy between your claimed credentials and your posts is just so immense it is difficult to believe you're being honest with us, and this makes treating you with respect very difficult.
I suggest you check a basic geology book out of the library and read it. You don't have to believe it or accept it, just understand it. Humphreys and Baumgardner and Ham are wrong because radioactive decay rates cannot change dramatically without leaving copious evidence all over the place, most obviously the extinction of all life and the incineration of the planet. They're wrong because continents moving at the breakneck speed of miles per day would leave completely different evidence than today's continental motion of a few centimeters per year. They're wrong because hundreds of yards of accumulation of the skeletons of microscopic creatures as limestone cannot happen in a few days. Their ideas are all "wave your magic wand" kinds of stuff that cannot happen in the real world. Jar was off-topic but not off-target when he labeled fundamentalists and evangelicals rubes who will believe anything if it supports their religious beliefs. The evidence says the earth is very ancient. If you want to believe the earth is young, then you have to believe that God rigged the evidence, too.
Let's talk about radioactivity a little bit. Do you remember the cold fusion fiasco? Do you know one of the reasons physicist knew that Fleishman and Pons were wrong about cold fusion? Because they weren't dead. If they had produced as much fusion as they claimed, the nuclear emissions would have killed them. Just a tiny part of a tiny piece of paladium going into fusion would have killed them.
Radium is the material they used to use to make clock hands glow in the dark. Do you know how weak the radioactivity from radium is? It's very, very weak. Do you know what happened to the girls who worked in shops painting radium on clock hands? They came down with radiation diseases like cancer and leukemia.
Do you know how much uranium is in the world? I don't know, either, but it's a lot. There's even a place where the uranium concentration was so great that the uranium went critical all by itself, a natural nuclear reactor right here on the earth's surface. Geiger counters go crazy near uranium mines. The workers have to take special precautions.
Have you heard of radon? It's a radioactive gas that is contained within the earth. In rocky parts of the world like New England radon can be a significant health concern, and many homes have to take active measures to ameliorate the problem.
So there's all this radioactive material all over the world. What do you think would happen if it all suddenly became a million times more radioactive? If you think "nothing much", then think again.
Now think about the sun. The sun is powered by nuclear fusion. What would happen to the sun if fusion suddenly became a million times more powerful? Does a supernova seem reasonable to you? It should.
Now, look around you. You're here. I'm here. The earth's here. The sun's here. Obviously, radioactive decay never operated at a million times the current rate. You don't have to think hard and long about this. It's obvious.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Philip, posted 07-20-2005 7:19 PM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Philip, posted 07-21-2005 12:19 AM Percy has replied
 Message 245 by Brian, posted 07-21-2005 12:25 PM Percy has not replied

bernd
Member (Idle past 4058 days)
Posts: 95
From: Munich,Germany
Joined: 07-10-2005


Message 238 of 301 (225024)
07-20-2005 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Philip
07-20-2005 6:16 PM


Re: Creationist Bias
Hello Phillip,
I think Kent Ham got it right, when he stated that according to CPT the whole ocean floor would be dramatically hotter.
When we assume that TrueCreations estimate of the total heat production of oceanic litosphere (see [1]) is more or less correct (my estimate was even higher) then we are talking about 3 * 10^28 Joule. That’s more than enough to turn all sea water into steam, a process that would kill all higher life forms on earth.
(Considering Baumgardners idea of superheated steam jets near ridge the to cool the ocean floor rapidly, please compare my arguments in [2])
Compared to this problem, my second objection is a minor one. I do not understand , how runaway subduction could possibly work, when the ocean floor is dramatically hotter not just at spreading ridges, but everywhere.
The reason for subduction is - at least in main stream geology - the cooling of the oceanic lithosphere as it moves away from the ridge. The colder subcrustal rocks in the lithospere become sufficiently dense to make old lithosphere heavy enough to be gravitationally unstable with respect to the hot mantel rocks immediately underlying the lithosphere. As a result of this gravitational instability the lithosphere founders and begins to sink into the interior of the Earth at ocean trenches [1]
-Bernd
References
[1] Message 127
[2] Message 155
[3] Turcote, Schubert (2002)
Geodynamics
Cambridge University Press, 9 p.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Philip, posted 07-20-2005 6:16 PM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Philip, posted 07-21-2005 1:05 AM bernd has replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4800 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 239 of 301 (225026)
07-20-2005 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by edge
07-20-2005 9:21 PM


Re: Any ideas?
"discrediting the entire YEC argument for CPT."
And just what might "the entire YEC argument for CPT" be?#!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by edge, posted 07-20-2005 9:21 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by edge, posted 07-23-2005 1:02 PM Philip has not replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4800 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 240 of 301 (225034)
07-21-2005 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Percy
07-20-2005 9:23 PM


Re: Any ideas left on CPT?
Percy,
OFF TOPIC (ON TARGET?):
None of my intensive courses in elect eng., psychology, premed, biomed, and podiatry even remotely resembled geology, let alone what’s going on today’s geo-forefront. (The closest I came to geology was meteorology.) I agree that I cannot argue well in this arena but it’s a hot topic and TalkOrigins has been (traditionally) too one-sided for me. At least your forum seems *opener* and CPT has been foremost on my mind and conscience.
Tonight, I can barely think from all the Spanish patients, (toenail) surgeries, injections, foot-strappings, toenail clippings, progress notes, family, and church I’ve been through.
Jar hasn’t offended me (just makes me laugh). Heck, Ken Ham offends me more than Edge; Ham seems more into ISSUES than reckoning with SCIENCE itself (try listening to his boring sermons, his skippy logic, and his ‘rumbling lack of thunder’).
I don’t care if the earth is young or old (as might be construed by your radioactivity illustration) as long as it doesn’t conflict with global flood reckonings
( since I really don’t want to play anti-Christ, period seeing that Christ repeatedly warns about his *second advent*, vicariously referencing Noah and the Flood as does Peter (e.g., Mat 24.38,39 Luk 17.27, 2Pe 2.5).)
OFF TOPIC/(ON-TARGET)?
(2nd half of your discourse)
OK,
You’re here. I’m here. The sun’s here. Obviously, radioactive decay never operated at a million times the current rate. You don't have to think hard and long about this. It's obvious.
--Well Percy, now I’m weirding out. I’m thinking long and hard about what’s so obvious. Is PT vs CPT dangling upon this radioactive illustration or something? I suppose it is. Forgive my *selective understanding*, hardheaded idiot-ness, perverse gullibility, etc. Your culminating crescendo of radioactive decay scenarios is vicarious and powerful rhetoric, but difficult for me to compute into formidable CPT-rejection hypothesis.
Anyone else want to validate Percy’s point? Is Percy’s main point here *old earth*? Did he just now illustrate a geo-column ‘apparent age’ fallacy or something or is this something more directly related to the CPT spoof at hand?
I’d moreover welcome a new topic such as: ’(Obvious) Radioactive Decay Scenarios’ vs ’Apparent Age (YEC) Scenarios’: *Proofs or Spoofs* for old vs. young earth (or something like that)
--Philip

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Percy, posted 07-20-2005 9:23 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Percy, posted 07-21-2005 10:24 AM Philip 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