Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9176 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,655 Year: 4,912/9,624 Month: 260/427 Week: 6/64 Day: 2/2 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Catastrophic Plate Tectonics - Fact or Fiction?
Philip
Member (Idle past 4811 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 241 of 301 (225035)
07-21-2005 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by bernd
07-20-2005 9:51 PM


Re: Creationist Bias
OFF TOPIC:
Thank you Bernd (I've compared your 3 fine references). I’m not a geologist, just a *heretic troll or something*; so bear with my spookiness.
ON TOPIC (or TARGET)
I think I (might) perceive a mainstream CPT debunk based on *data* that:
there is not enough water in the ocean to cool the oceanic lithosphere to its current temperature
I’ll forgo your Hawaiian-Emperor Seamount Chain argument since ‘radioactivity’ may get more into Percy’s *obvious data model* that I’m still re-thinking.
Perhaps, I’d suggest the following *absurdity* (until TC returns from the dead):
*Supernatural* vs. natural global flooding (global rains one time for 40 days/nights) covering the mountains or pre-mountains (peradventure, a ‘god-did-it’ global-flood phenomenon that lasted almost a year (are you still here?)) Where such waters came from and returned to, Bernd, I’d rather not comment on (i.e., after what happened to TC and all)
But might that perhaps provide enough water in the ocean to cool the oceanic lithosphere to its current temperature (without all the fish dying up north)?
Philip
Edited for garble
This message has been edited by Philip, 07-21-2005 01:09 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by bernd, posted 07-20-2005 9:51 PM bernd has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by bernd, posted 07-22-2005 9:27 PM Philip has not replied

wj
Inactive Member


Message 242 of 301 (225054)
07-21-2005 6:15 AM


Don't...
...feed the troll.

Percy
Member
Posts: 22623
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 243 of 301 (225097)
07-21-2005 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by Philip
07-21-2005 12:19 AM


Re: Any ideas left on CPT?
Philip writes:
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
And if the Bible said something about feet? Would you reject those parts of podiatry that conflicted with the Bible's statements about feet?
Wj is convinced you're a troll, but, then, he thinks every knucklehead is a troll. Some trolls really *are* just knuckleheads. However, what's the difference whether someone is being difficult out of perversity or ignorance? Some believe that perversity is rarely fixable but that ignorance is easily remedied, but like I said before, yours seems a particularly determined form of ignorance, one that is very common among Creationists.
I again suggest that you read an introductory book on geology. Don't you think this is a good idea, too? Wouldn't reading a book and learning something beat all to hell the abuse you're getting here? And wouldn't learning some basic principles of geology hold open the promise of returning to participation here far better equipped to contribute to the discussion? And wouldn't that be far more rewarding and fun than what is happening now? Hmmm, or maybe you're ignorant *and* perverse.
I think you're hopeless and that I'm making a mistake to do this, but here's the radiometric problem with CPT in a nutshell. It is not the only serious problem. There are also the heat, energy, sedimentary and magnetic reversal problems. Each one by itself is sufficient to sink CPT.
Geologic layers are dated by radiometric dating. Radioactive elements decay to other elements, called daughter elements, at a rate determined by the elements half-life. For example, uranium decays to lead (it's more complicated than that, but let's keep it simple), and it does so at the rate of it's half-life, which is 4.5 billion years (this is actually the half-life of 238U, one of the several isotopes of uranium, but it's the most common one). This means that if you have a pound of uranium, after 4.5 billion years you'll have a half pound of uranium and a half pound of lead.
Geologic layers are dated by determining how long radioactive materials have been present in the layers through measuring the ratios of the orignal element to the daughter elements (again, it's more complicated than that, but let's keep it simple, I'm just trying to communicate the general principles behind radiometric dating). The more daughter element there is relative to the original element, the longer the original element has been in the ground.
What we find is that the deeper the geologic layer, the older it is. Cambrian layers, around 500 million years old, have higher concentrations of the daughter elements of radioactive materials than do the more recent layers above them. The Ordovician, just above the Cambrian at around 450 million years old, has lower concentrations of daughter elements. The Silurian above that is around 420 million years old and has even lower concentrations. As we look at layers higher and higher in the geologic column we find that they have less and less concentrations of daughter elements until we reach the most recent layers and find no daughter elements at all!
This is just what we would expect. The longer a geologic layer has been the in the ground, the more time the radioactive elements in the layer have had to decay to daughter elements, and there should therefore be a higher proportion of daughter elements in older layers.
CPT speculates that all the layers of the geologic column formed in less than a single year. In order to explain the concentrations of daughter elements in the geologic layers, CPT requires that radioactive decay must have occurred at a much higher rate during this period, about a million times faster. You see, it's been about 500 million years since the Cambrian. We know this because Cambrian layers contain about 500 million years worth accumulation of daughter elements. So in order for the Cambrian layers to actually be only a few thousand years old, during the flood year radioactive decay must have taken place a million times faster than what we observe today.
Aside from the fact that there's no evidence anywhere that accelerated radioactive decay ever happened, if it had happened, what would that mean for life on earth? The average background radiation on the surface of the earth is about 10 roentgens/year. A lethal dose of radiation for a human is around 600 roentgens. If radiation levels rose a million times during the flood year, that would be 10 million roentgens/year, or more than 10,000 times the lethal dose.
What do you think would happen to life exposed to 10,000 times the lethal dose of radiation? Does death, fairly quick given the high radiation levels, seem the only possible outcome? It should.
But we're here, aren't we. Life on earth did not go extinct. Therefore accelerated radioactive decay never happened.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Philip, posted 07-21-2005 12:19 AM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Joe Meert, posted 07-21-2005 10:35 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 250 by Philip, posted 07-22-2005 11:21 AM Percy has not replied

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5768 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 244 of 301 (225102)
07-21-2005 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Percy
07-21-2005 10:24 AM


Re: Any ideas left on CPT?
quote:
Percy writes:
But we're here, aren't we. Life on earth did not go extinct. Therefore accelerated radioactive decay never happened.
JM: It's not just the lethal doses of radiation, it's also the intense heat. Each decay is energetic and produces heat. Accelerated decay in the amounts needed to yield an 'old looking' earth would have positively cooked the planet. Here is a rather simple look at how much heat.
ROASTING ADAM-Creationism's Heat Problem
WHy doesn't the flood story mention the boiling of the oceans? The intense heat produced by rapid decay? Why does the bible not talk of the heat shield technology needed to keep the water surrounding the ark from boiling away and the ark itself (along with its contents) from being fried to a crisp?
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Percy, posted 07-21-2005 10:24 AM Percy has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 5048 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 245 of 301 (225123)
07-21-2005 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Percy
07-20-2005 9:23 PM


Re: Any ideas?
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.
Perhaps Phillip went through a conversional experience AFTER he earned all those degrees?
This is not a flippant remark, I firmly believe that these conversional experiences close the mind of the person who has went through it.
It is entirely possible that Phillip can work away at his job very competently and in a scientific manner, while simultaneously being completely closed to any contrary evidence to his faith.
Some people have a way of maintaining their faith in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence, in this instance (CPT) it involves adopting any remote hypothesis no matter how absurd. It also doesn't matter if the believer has little or no knowledge of the subject, s/he will quite happily state that the experts are wrong, despite being unable to tell them why they are wrong.
I wonder if Phillip goes to a geologist for advice about bunions?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Percy, posted 07-20-2005 9:23 PM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22623
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 246 of 301 (225436)
07-22-2005 9:26 AM


Sea Floor Stretching
In an article in the February 11, 2005, Science, geologists Anthony Koppers and Hubert Staudigel speculate that sea floor stretching might be responsible for the Gilbert Ridge and Tokelau seamount trails. Sea floor stretching is the kind of evidence that Edge and I earlier proposed in this thread might support slab pull as a significant force. TrueCreation might want to give this paper a peek:
Here's the abstract:
The Gilbert Ridge and Tokelau Seamounts are the only seamount trails in the Pacific Ocean with a sharp 60- bend, similar to the Hawaii-Emperor bend (HEB). These two bends should be coeval with the 47-million-year-old HEB if they were formed by stationary hot spots, and assuming Pacific plate motion only. New 40Ar/39Ar ages indicate that the bends in the Gilbert Ridge and Tokelau seamount trail were formed much earlier than the HEB at 67 and 57 million years ago, respectively. Such asynchronous bends cannot be reconciled with the stationary hot spot paradigm, possibly suggesting hot spot motion or magmatism caused by short-term local lithospheric extension.
One comment from the last page of the paper touches on the forces behind plate motion:
Plate extension may be related to long-term and plate-wide processes because they are the result of the longterm subduction and ridge-push forces that determine the overall plate-motion vectors (16).
Here's reference 16, maybe someone can track it down:
16. C. Lithgow-Bertelloni, J. H. Guynn, J. Geophys. Res. 109, B014108 (2004).
It would be interesting to find more up-to-date information about current views within geology about the forces behind plate motion. What I've found so far on the web about slab-pull and ridge-push is very undetailed.
Here's a lesson in circumspection for TC. In contrast to TC's bold statement that slab-push is *the* significant force behind plate motion, on another topic Koppers and Staudigel say about the causes of seamount trails like the Gilbert Ridge and Tokelau:
Overall, plate extension is the strongest alternative among our three options, but there are very few arguments or clues that positively identify any particular explanation.
In other words, there's insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion. Would that the CPT people could recognize such cases, or even think of evidence as important to their theories.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by PaulK, posted 07-22-2005 10:09 AM Percy has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 247 of 301 (225445)
07-22-2005 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Percy
07-22-2005 9:26 AM


Reference 16
Origin of the lithospheric stress field
Web access to the full paper is subscription-only (or it can be bought as print)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Percy, posted 07-22-2005 9:26 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Percy, posted 07-22-2005 10:32 AM PaulK has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22623
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 248 of 301 (225450)
07-22-2005 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by PaulK
07-22-2005 10:09 AM


Re: Reference 16
The abstract for reference 16 refers to a World Stress Map. Here's an image of a poster based upon the data:
A few things. Obviously the poster represents only some of the data. And unfortunately the legend covers up the South Pacific where the Gilbert Ridge and Tokelau seamount trails lie. Can someone interpret the poster for us?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by PaulK, posted 07-22-2005 10:09 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by roxrkool, posted 07-22-2005 11:15 AM Percy has replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1077 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 249 of 301 (225457)
07-22-2005 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Percy
07-22-2005 10:32 AM


Re: Reference 16
NF = normal faulting
SS = strike-slip faulting
TF = thrust faulting
U = undetermined
Quality of data (No webpage found at provided URL: http://www-wsm.physik.uni-karlsruhe.de/pub/stress_data/stress_data_frame.html:
The ranking scheme allows to assign the data into A, B, C, D and E quality categories. The highest quality is A, category E corresponds to data that are not used in the WSM, but are kept for book-keeping purposes in the data base (Zoback, 1992).
A-quality data are believed to record the orientation of SH to within 10-15, the B-quality data to within 15-20, and the C-quality data to within 25. D-quality data are considered to give questionable stress orientations for several reasons: the data either show a standard deviation >25, come from very shallow near surface measurements or result from a measurement that sampled only a small volume of rock (Zoback, 1992).
The stress orientations and length of symbols:
The stress maps display the orientations of the maximum horizontal stress SH. The length of the stress symbols represents the data quality, with A as the best quality category.
I'm not positive, but I think Method refers to how the stress information was obtained.
This link might help with visualizing fault data: Stress Regime Assignment
This message has been edited by roxrkool, 07-22-2005 11:22 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Percy, posted 07-22-2005 10:32 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Percy, posted 07-23-2005 6:31 AM roxrkool has not replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4811 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 250 of 301 (225458)
07-22-2005 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Percy
07-21-2005 10:24 AM


Re: Rebuttal summary
To summarize some CPT rebuttals (for my benefit and/or other readers):
1) Christ/Bible (*apparent*) conflicts with science leads to some creationists determined ignorance in geology (and other sciences). Or (as Brian stated)adopting any remote (i.e., CPT) hypothesis no matter how absurd.
2) Radiometric dating (isotopic comparisons and daughter elements) *appears* overwhelming proof that the geo-layers are all incrementally *aged* (the deeper you go)
3) CPT speculates that ALL the (fossilized) layers of the geologic column formed in less than a single year. This CPT scenario would require an accelerated radioactive decay (i.e., with such an extremely accelerated abundance of lethal roentgens).
5) (As per Joe Meert) Secondary intense heat radiation, would have boiled the oceans (and Noah’s ark) away if CPT’s ‘apparent age’ geo-column model were ever viable.
(Please let me refute later)
--Philip
This message has been edited by Philip, 07-22-2005 11:53 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Percy, posted 07-21-2005 10:24 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Philip, posted 07-25-2005 6:58 PM Philip has not replied

bernd
Member (Idle past 4069 days)
Posts: 95
From: Munich,Germany
Joined: 07-10-2005


Message 251 of 301 (225601)
07-22-2005 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Philip
07-21-2005 1:05 AM


Re: Creationist Bias
Hello Phillip,
Some remarks to your last message.
1) It’s not possible to defend a scientific theory by invoking a miracle. In doing so, you are suggesting that CPT is a piece of theological reasoning disguised as a text about plate tectonics. This would undermine the main point of CPT: to lend creditability to the idea of a young earth by bringing up a explanation for the flood which is not in conflict with known physical laws.
2) Even when we assume that the flood covered the highest mountains, specially Mount Everest, the water wouldn’t suffice to cool the lithosphere to its current temperature. As I wrote in [1] we need at least 5,7*10^21 kg of water for the cooling, that is 4.2 times the mass of the actual oceans. The average depth of the current ocean is about 4000 m, the depth of the hypothetical flood ocean would be 16800 m.
3) Please note, that I only considered the heat which is released the production of the ocean floor, you have to add the heat caused by accelerated radioactive decay, which taken alone would be sufficient to melt the whole earth. (have a look at Joe Meert‘s message [2])
4) The Hawaiian-Emperor Seamount Chain argument I tried to make, states that even when we accept accelerated radioactive decay as reason for the measured ages of the volcanoes, CPT would have to explain, how seamounts can be build within a very short time frame (under CPT assumptions plates move at a velocity of more than 16 km a day). Please have a look at this link, which describes the evolution of the hawaiian seamounts. [3].
-Bernd
References
[1] Message 155
[2] Message 244
[3] Evolution of Hawaiian volcanoes - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Philip, posted 07-21-2005 1:05 AM Philip has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22623
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 252 of 301 (225632)
07-23-2005 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by roxrkool
07-22-2005 11:15 AM


Re: Reference 16
Thanks for the info. I misinterpreted the title, World Stress Map. It shows stress along plate boundaries, and thought it would present which parts of the sea floor were in compression and which in tension. Oh, well.
--Percy
This message has been edited by Percy, 07-23-2005 06:32 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by roxrkool, posted 07-22-2005 11:15 AM roxrkool has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by edge, posted 07-23-2005 1:23 PM Percy has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1795 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 253 of 301 (225672)
07-23-2005 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Philip
07-20-2005 10:02 PM


Re: Any ideas?
"discrediting the entire YEC argument for CPT."
And just what might "the entire YEC argument for CPT" be?#!
That it happened because it must'a happened.
This message has been edited by Admin, 07-23-2005 01:20 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Philip, posted 07-20-2005 10:02 PM Philip has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1795 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 254 of 301 (225676)
07-23-2005 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Percy
07-23-2005 6:31 AM


Re: Reference 16
Thanks for the info. I misinterpreted the title, World Stress Map. It shows stress along plate boundaries, and thought it would present which parts of the sea floor were in compression and which in tension. Oh, well.
Yes, unfortunately, even when an area is in tension there is still a principal stress axis. You might notice, however, that the Colorado Plateau is surrounded by lines parallel to the edge of the plateau. This would indicate to me that the those zones are basically in tension, oriented perpendicular to the boundaries.
(added by edit)THanks for the site, Percy.
This message has been edited by edge, 07-23-2005 01:24 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Percy, posted 07-23-2005 6:31 AM Percy has not replied

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2981 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 255 of 301 (226216)
07-25-2005 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by edge
07-18-2005 9:01 PM


Re: Baumgardner and His Paleontology Debunk
Philip says:
"And, knowing my biology (i.e., we have yet to find a mutation that increases genetic information); I must deny traditional paleontology and PT as validated."
This is of course way off topic but this canard has been repeated by creationist apologists for so long that it deserves refutation every time it rears its fake argument ugly head.
A mutation is a change in genetic information. That means there is new information. New information means more information, since the old information still exists in unmutated individuals. To say otherwise is to deny that mutations occur at all which of course is nonsense. Whether or not the new information will be USEFUL information is another story. Often it isn't. But every now and then it is. Natural selection decides whether the information is useful or not. And that, my friend, is how evolution works - micro, macro, or nano, it makes no difference. So please Philip, stop repeating the YEC BS assertions you are getting off creationist websites. By repeating assertions like this you clearly demonstrate that you do NOT "know your biology", at least not the part of biology that includes genetics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by edge, posted 07-18-2005 9:01 PM edge has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024