Hydroplates unchallenged young earth explains Tectonics shortcomings!

YOu get an A on Quiz 1CheersJoe Meert

You so much resemble Agassiz in your Avatar. Bury your head, avoid details and hope you get away with it. There are some very well-educated people in this forum who are not about to let you get away with a simple hand-wave dismissal. Do you have evidence or not? Are you able to defend the evidence in your own words or do you need to run off to Walt's website and poorly transcribe notes from his pages? I often warn my students that a class lecture is not about passing my notes to their notes bypassing their brains.CheersJoe Meert[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 02-05-2004]

quote:

---

Coincidence?

---

JM: People are going to start noticing the diminishing logic and poor defense of your position. I predict we are only hours, if not only a few days, from the end of your posting on this site. In my experience, it always ends the same way. It goes something like this "While I can't answer any of your questions with any detail (this is the unspoken portion)..God will have your ass in a sling for not buying into the propaganda I've laid out for you" (in incredibly vague detail mind you).CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Either way, I do think the continents parted in the recent past. You gotta admit Walt's fit at the ridge is a better one than pts! He may have it wrong.

---

JM: He does have it wrong and why do you think it is a better fit? Be specific please (e.g. please give us geological and geophysical details).CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

ha. the radiometric thing I've already said before is less dependable by some estimates than Jeanne Dixon's successful predictions.

---

JM: ipse dixit. Please provide detailed evidence and explain in your own words why the scientific basis for radiometric dating is wrong. Try to avoid copying unsupported documentation from Walt (if possible). Do you ever think on your own?CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

I don't plan to be here long

---

JM: Duh! We all knew that the minute you started your cut-and-paste blitzkrieg. It happens everytime we start asking for details. First we get a bit of whining (and no details) and then eventually they disappear without ever scientifically defending their position. Will you be able to last longer than a month? We'll see how long you can dodge questions about details and pretend you are not copying from Walt.

quote:

---

but show me how much of of your knowledge is not built on the assumptions of great age, and there is probably not much left

---

JM: As soon as you show me with scientific evidence that you have support that the assumptions are wrong, perhaps you'll make headway. My prediction is that, like most creationists, you'll wimp out and leave by (at the latest) the end of the month. We'll never get anything more than handwave dismissals. Do you have any scientific details? Are you able to develop and present your own ideas in a coherent fashion. I'm betting no, I'm hoping you'll stick around longer than the 1/2 life of most (~ 1 month).CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

if the Pacific plates are moving, wouldn't they be scraped off, is there seamounts in the Atlantic Ocean, etc...

---

JM: Why would they be scraped off if they are on top of the plate? The key is what happens to them as the approach a trench because in the middle of the ocean they will buoyantly subside. Yes, there are seamounts in the Atlantic. In more detail, when seamounts encounter a trench, they are accreted to the margin as they are difficult to subduct.

quote:

---

or that tectonic plate theory believes so, please quote your sources, etc

---

JM: Joe Meert, personal notes GLY 1000, GLY 2010 and also almost any introductory geology text. You might also look through the last 2-3 years of the journal Geology and also "Mantle Convection in the Earth and Planets by Schubert et al. Now, how about you supply us with some peer-reviewed scientific literature for your position.[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 02-05-2004]

quote:

---

though in fact I am sitting on land that was scaped off the floor of the pacific.

---

JM: Are you on the Franciscan melange? Interesting aside, the San Francisco mint is built on a subduction complex.CheersJoe Meert

check for yourself. Do you have any evidence it is not moving?
http://triton.ori.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~intridge/pmc/nuvel1.html
CheersJoe meert

quote:

---

Hydroplate people seem to think they did most of their riding in a few days around the flood somewhere, and they ate kinda just settling in now, I think they believe that's what causes earthquakes?

---

JM: But hydroplate people (of which there is only one) don't present a physically plausible mechanism for moving 100 kilometer thick plates around at km/hour.CheersJoe MeertPS: I am curious as to your level of education. How much college level physics, math and geology have you completed? It will help guide some of my answers to you on this topic.

quote:

---

So Walt's sliding continents (I thought he said the water was 10 miles under) have no mechanism? I thought he said something about that 'theory' of gravity? Are we assuming the 100 km 'plate' from pt? Why would I believe you over Walt? Anyone can say they "should not be questioned cause 'everyone' knows I'm right, what are you ignorant (uneducated)because you don't also?

---

JM: I'm doing nothing more than asking so that I can formulate my answer to you in detail. If I post equations that you don't understand, then I waste my time and you learn nothing. If you have a reasonable math and physics background, then we can discuss why Walt's proposal won't work. Have you taken college level physics with calculus, or not? Many well-educated people have never taken these courses so it's not meant to be a sleight. It's meant to develop further discussion on this issue in a scientific manner. If you don't have the background, I can try to formulate the answer algebraically and if that is still too much, I can work on developing a simpler explanation. One of the issues for Walts model (just for your edification) is the same problem that the Baumgardner model has. Namely, Walt's mechanism can't explain the depths of the ocean (see THE DEPTHS OF THE OCEANS ). You can get some idea of the math in that post.CheersJoe MeertCheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

It seems to me that hydroplate "theory" can't explain isostatic rebound, but I'm not positive

---

JM: I've not looked into it. I suspect that Baumgardner's model might be able to explain it a bit better than Walt's since Baumgardner could claim it results from a progressive post-flood 'stiffening' of the mantle. Anyway, it is a good point and worth some detailed exploration.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

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.

---

JM:[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 02-07-2004]

i misread your post, tried to remove my comments but not soon enough!CheersJoe Meert

90% something's fishy here. When I saw the number, I was surprised, when I saw that AIG provided no source for this number I was not. I looked through a couple of papers on water content in magmas and found quoted ranges of 0-7%.Here's one example from Alaska (Maximum water content in all samples was 5-7 wt. %)http://www.uoregon.edu/~artemis/Augustine.htmlhere's another from Ed Stolper on back arc magmatism
Page Not Found Division of Geological and Planetary SciencesI think you better document this number with a source.CheersJoe Meert