Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-20-2019 1:22 PM
31 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume:
Total: 851,633 Year: 6,670/19,786 Month: 1,211/1,581 Week: 33/393 Day: 16/17 Hour: 3/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   YEC approaches to empirical investigation
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 713
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 211 of 303 (243352)
09-14-2005 2:23 PM


There shouldn't be a conflict if YEC is right.
The way I see it is that if YEC is right then there must be evidence for all of its suppositions somewhere out there.

There should be no conflict at all between God's word and science. Science should simply confirm the bible.

If this is the case then where is the bias?

I say let's give a go. Set up a thread or even a whole forum where YEC is considered as a starting point and we investigate the evidence for and against certain parts of it. We just have to stop short of dismissing YEC altogether and find a better way that it could work.


PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 713
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 228 of 303 (243882)
09-15-2005 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Jazzns
09-14-2005 6:33 PM


Re: Fact versus interpretation/theory
The only one here who has not been able to tell the difference between fact and theory has been you and Ben so far. Even this mildly amusing attempt of yours to counter the facts one again simply further shows that you don't understand them.

Actually Jazzns I can see their point.
I don't see your "fact" about the plates being pulled rather than pushed as basic level data.

I mean, can you actually observe the plates being pulled apart rather than pushed apart?
Sure you can infer it from observations but then that makes it a conclusion rather than an undebatable fact or data point.

To be quite honest I don't know much about plate tectonics but I can't really understand how it would be possible to directly observe the pulling forces that you claim as facts.
I certainly don't dispute that other evidence may point towards this as a conclusion but what is this evidence? Where is the data?

I think that is what Ben and Faith are getting at.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Jazzns, posted 09-14-2005 6:33 PM Jazzns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Jazzns, posted 09-15-2005 4:09 PM PurpleYouko has responded

PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 713
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 230 of 303 (243888)
09-15-2005 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Jazzns
09-15-2005 4:09 PM


Re: Fact versus interpretation/theory
OK that is a lot better.

I think what Faith is suggesting though, is that the upwelling of magma is exerting a hydraulic pressure that is actively pushing the plates apart. If this were possible then it would tend to explain the way she sees things.
On the face of it this seems to be a feasible alternative explanation. What we need to discuss is why it isn't feasible.

I know how easy it is for someone who knows a field well to jump a little ahead of other's level of knowledge.
It is just that what you probably see as obvious and almost beneath mentioning really isn't to the layman. Personally I really have no idea what happens but I would like to find out.

I will check out your thread and read your description of the process before making any more comments. Thanks for the suggestion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Jazzns, posted 09-15-2005 4:09 PM Jazzns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Jazzns, posted 09-15-2005 4:46 PM PurpleYouko has not yet responded

PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 713
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 240 of 303 (244113)
09-16-2005 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by Faith
09-16-2005 9:31 AM


Re: Atlantic ridge and continental drift etc.
Hi Faith

I see we have actually gotten into evidence and descriptions now. That has to be a good thing all around. Like you I always thought of divergent boundaries as a PUSH thing. I even took some quite advanced Geology classes back in the 70s that still left me thinking that way.

What Jazz is saying actually makes a lot of sense though so I went googling myself to find some simple descriptions of what is going on. Here are a few that I found. They definitely agree with what Jazz has been saying.


Click to enlarge

This picture came from This very informative site.
Note that the thickness of the crust at the divergent boundary is very thin so a PUSH from this point would be likely to result in some serious buckling I think.
Also check the Rift Valley shown to the right. It clearly shows the pulling action by the way that the sides of the valley are constantly falling into the rift via faulting as the plates move apart.
This site is very simple to understand also. It shows the way that a rift valley forms at a divergent boundary

I think the issue here is that the rift valleys (particularly land based ones) at divergent boundaries have been observed to widen prior to the emergence of magma.

Does this information help at all?

{ABE for some reason my thumbnail doesn't show up properly. It does still open the picture when you click to enlarge though}

{AdminBen: AbE: PurpleYouko, you were using the URL of the webpage, not the image, in the "thumb" dbCode. You need to use the URL of the image}

This message has been edited by PurpleYouko, 09-16-2005 10:08 AM

This message has been edited by AdminBen, 09/16/2005 10:22 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Faith, posted 09-16-2005 9:31 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Faith, posted 09-16-2005 10:35 AM PurpleYouko has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019