Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
The viscosities that you need the ad hoc theory of accelerated decay in order to achieve.
--I'm afraid this is wrong. The mantle viscosities implied by runaway subduction are not associated with accelerated decay. Please go back and read some of my older posts on this subject and more importantly, I suggest reading some of Baumgardner's papers on his 2D runaway calculations.
This is not clear. The statement showed that you accept CPT.
--And my response showed the inverse! I elaborated on my position and dismantled your flawed understanding of my position on these issues so please don't do so again in the future, incessantly..
You cannot blame everyone else for not understanding your position.
--This is not the problem, the problem is that misunderstandings of my position occur regularely, despite my efforts at correction. As far as I can see, they are evidently ignored. I hope this will change.
I was only concerned about your education.
--The point was that your assertion was out of place and unwarranted. In fact, I explained the opposite to you in the very post you replied to with that statement!
-You will note that I said 'shouldn't have to'.
--Exactly! That was the point because this implies that you were indeed making assumptions.. ones that I have made aware that you should not be making.
If your position is different from what you are saying then you should probably reevaluate your posts.
--I am over explaining this to you.
Then you must expect some misunderstandings.
--Sure, but not the same ones over and over again despite correction and my informing you on your flawed understanding of my disposition.
Then you shouldn't say that something must have come about due to CPT.
--Think about it, if CPT has occured (which I am deliberately assuming when I perform my analyses--it is required, obviously) than I am explaining what it would result in. Again, please at least make an attempt to try and understand my approach here..
Actually, I believe in catastrophes. Just not the ones that YECs adhere to. In fact, I would prefer to be known as a catastrophist. The problem is that the whole concept is perverted by YEC reasoning.
--Semantics. Please take me in context when I say 'catastrophic geology', you know what it alludes to and you can (or should be able to) therefore make an intelligently inferred definition.
I presume that accelerated decay was not a natural process. Though I also suspect that it is the reason CPT and runaway subduction occured and hence, much of the geologic record.
So, was accelerated decay responsible for the runaway subduction in your (ad hoc) model or not?
Last edited by notto; 6th November 2003 at 05:32 PM.
I have given you data. They are observations from the Hawaii-Emperor chain. How do you explain them?
--lol, what data!? What observations are you talking about, and how are they direct evidence for the erosional process responsible for the entire island chain?? Give me some bathymetric charts, give me some data on the geology of old deeply submerged seamounts, give me something of this nature. Please present something relevant, I am drowning here!
The model for coral atolls is well known.
--I don't need a model, I need data. Give me some drill core data, give me something that supports your (pre-concieved) conclusion at least. Do you have some, or are your conclusions indeed pre-concieved and hence credulously deduced.
I am. I believe in catastrophism.
--Context, context.
Perhaps it is only reasonable.
--And your just going to leave it at that??? Wow..
That is more than what you seem to propose.
--I am not proposing much here, it is you who are making some pretty darn confident claims regarding the history of the hawaiian seamount chain and have not presented any data to support it.
--You took me out of context, I didn't say that I have data that says "Aha! CPT happened here". I do, however, have very compelling data that says "Aha! Accelerated decay is a requisite to catastrophic geology!".
LOL!!! A fantastic mechanism is necessary for an unsupported theory to be true! That's rich. [quote]
--Was this even called for?? Your comment makes no sense and doesn't seem to have any substance to counter my rational for saying that accelerated decay is a requisite to catastrophic geology.
--lol, what data!? What observations are you talking about, and how are they direct evidence for the erosional process responsible for the entire island chain?? Give me some bathymetric charts, give me some data on the geology of old deeply submerged seamounts, give me something of this nature. Please present something relevant, I am drowning here!
You will have to do your own research here. I don't really care whether you believe me or not. Eventually, you will see this in your textbooks.
--I don't need a model, I need data. Give me some drill core data, give me something that supports your (pre-concieved) conclusion at least. Do you have some, or are your conclusions indeed pre-concieved and hence credulously deduced.
LOL!!! You accept the Baumgardner model so easily and yet you want all data relevant to seamounts from me! Good one!
--I am not proposing much here, it is you who are making some pretty darn confident claims regarding the history of the hawaiian seamount chain and have not presented any data to support it.
Yes, I am quite confident. What exactly is your story?
--Was this even called for?? Your comment makes no sense and doesn't seem to have any substance to counter my rational for saying that accelerated decay is a requisite to catastrophic geology.
But your statement is totally meaningless. Basically, you are saying that IF an event that there is no evidence for actually happened, then a mechanism that is totally unsupported, was responsible for it. That's hardly a great contribution to science or a substantial post for a message board.
did this accelerated decay happen everywhere at once, or just on the earth.... why?.. why did the decay accelerate and where is the evidence? Why aren't we all hideously deformed mutants of superhuman size and strength?
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
But your statement is totally meaningless. Basically, you are saying that IF an event that there is no evidence for actually happened, then a mechanism that is totally unsupported, was responsible for it. That's hardly a great contribution to science or a substantial post for a message board.
Nicely put.
If there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, then the leprechaun put it there.
did this accelerated decay happen everywhere at once, or just on the earth.... why?.. why did the decay accelerate and where is the evidence? Why aren't we all hideously deformed mutants of superhuman size and strength?
This question (and its likely answer) exposes the ad hoc nature of the model.
ad hoc: For the specific purpose, case, or situation at hand and for no other.
It occured just when needed for the model and ended just when the model needs it to. It occured just where the model needs it and did not occur where it would falsify the model.
Last edited by notto; 7th November 2003 at 09:17 AM.
--lol, what data!? What observations are you talking about, and how are they direct evidence for the erosional process responsible for the entire island chain?? Give me some bathymetric charts, give me some data on the geology of old deeply submerged seamounts, give me something of this nature. Please present something relevant, I am drowning here!
You will have to do your own research here. I don't really care whether you believe me or not. Eventually, you will see this in your textbooks.
--Um, sorry you need to do the work. It is YOU who thinks that the Hawaiian seamount chain falsifies CPT without mercy. I don't care if you do or don't do your own research; what bothers me is you not withdrawing your conclusion that it does falsify CPT. When your the one making the assertions, you do the research. BTW, there is a name for this logical fallacy..
LOL!!! You accept the Baumgardner model so easily and yet you want all data relevant to seamounts from me! Good one!
--Can you please just shut up with my 'acceptence' of Baumgardner's model!!! I thought I pounded this statment into the ground just a couple days ago??!! What is going on here! Cool it with the incessant misrepresentation.
--And yes I do want the data relevant to the seamounts, it isn't just a necessity, it is a requirement in order to substantiate your very confident statements regarding their implications for CPT.
Yes, I am quite confident. What exactly is your story?
--My story? Your the one who needs the story to support your statements.
But your statement is totally meaningless. Basically, you are saying that IF an event that there is no evidence for actually happened, then a mechanism that is totally unsupported, was responsible for it. That's hardly a great contribution to science or a substantial post for a message board.
--I have explained the rational quite clearly if accelerated decay is required for any model of catastrophic geology including CPT, you are working so far out of the box you can't even focus on the box anymore.
Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Last edited by TrueCreation; 8th November 2003 at 01:40 AM.
Linear Mode
