Proof against abiogenesis/evolution -- affirmative proof of God

[True_Blue]

Why do they believe this? What is their evidence? And don't say the bible if you don't want to be laughed at, this is a scientific discussion.

My rebuttal was intended for Christian who disbelieves the hydroplate theory, not a non-Christian who doens't believe the flood at all.

 

[True_Blue]

True Blue wrote:

Ok...precisely how would you link an exogenous power source to plate tectonics? I'm pretty sure neither the sun or any other star provides materially sufficient energy for plate techtonics, any more than sunlight provides a source of energy for internal combustion engines.

You are wrong on both counts.

The reason the Earth’s outer core is molten is because of radioactive decay, particularly thorium and uranium. Thorium and Uranium are very heavy elements, which are produced in the R Process other heavy elements are produced in the S Process. When stars go Supernova these heavy elements along with all the other elements are dispersed into space where there are incorporated into immense Molecular clouds, these clouds collapse (we have been over this) to form stars, planets, solar systems etc. So planets including Earth are enriched in heavy elements including radioactive isotopes; over time (billions of years) the earth has been fractionating leading to a much denser core as compared to the upper mantle and crust. The energy released from the breakdown of these radiogenic isotopes is what produces the energy needed for the core to have remained molten to this point in time and the energy needed to power the plate tectonic cycle.

The sun does provide us with the source of power for internal combustion engines, fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal etc) are just that; stored energy from the sun.


For all practical purposes, the interior of the earth is a closed system, and any eruptions to the surface will diminish with time.

Absolutely true, during the earths earlier stages magmas were far richer in Mg and Fe, a good indication that there was more energy in the system. At some point (billions of years) in the future the Earth will have used up its store of star energy (above) and plate tectonics will cease.

CL, I'm not sure we're communicating, and this is really an area where we should be in complete agreement because it doesn't implicate origin issues. Forget gas clouds and supernovas--that's ancient history. Today, we have the earth as it is, with a hard crust and magma underneath. We've also got the sun bathing the earth in radiation. Both sources of energy touch the lithosphere. I'm saying that, with respect to plate tectonics, sunlight is almost completely insignificant. Geologists studying earthquakes, etc. don't care about sunlight. By the same token, sure the energy of fossil fuels derived from a sun. But if you're studying the inner workings of a car engine, you don't care about sunlight hitting the surface of the car. Sunlight makes only a slight bit of difference, but that effect is so small it need not be considered.

 

[TeddyKGB]

In the context of a catastrophic paradigm, which is now universally recognized as truth (though the source of the catastrophe is disputed--Flood, asteroid, etc), despite the fact that evolution was decades late to the party, it's difficult to estimate the age of the earth based on present-day erosion. Noah's Flood caused vastly greater erosion rates than we know of today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophism: "The dominant paradigm of geology has been uniformitarianism (also sometimes described as gradualism), but recently a more inclusive and integrated view of geologic events has developed resulting in a gradual change in the scientific consensus, reflecting acceptance of some catastrophic events."

Pure catastrophism is stillborn. The notion that all planetary features can be explained by intense, brief events is belied by the reality that if everything is a catastrophe then nothing is a catastrophe. The only way catastrophic events can be observed or deduced is against a background of non-catastrophic processes.

I don't know how influential was the original paradigm of pure uniformitarianism, but it is not being replaced by catastrophism. A more accurate term for the modern paradigm would be, coincidentally, punctuated uniformitarianism.

 

[Baggins]

My rebuttal was intended for Christian who disbelieves the hydroplate theory, not a non-Christian who doens't believe the flood at all.

OK

 

[True_Blue]

Explain why you think the earth's interior is a closed system? Which bits are closed the upper mantle obviously isn't but that affects the lower mantle and that affects the core, How can it be a closed system if it isn't closed?

So? There is a lot of radioactivity down there, a lot elements with very long half lives. Can you show that present geological models are inadequate in some way without resorting to quoting the bible?

And we already know how much brighter lawyers are than earth scientists when it comes to describing the earth.

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=radioactivity+plate+tectonics&btnG=Search

Moreover, heat rises, so I would expect any radioactive magma to be ejected first in any volcanic eruption. I wonder if this is potential new evidence of creationism.

So because you can walk up to magma without radioactive poisoning therefore there is no radioactivity in the earth?

Good grief, for a supposedly clever person you do take up the most ridiculous positions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granite#Natural_Radiation

What is this radioactive magma you have just invented? I really despair, you make things up without the most cursory investigation.


This is getting more and more like Rob Byers by the post, the musings of a fantasist with no education in the sciences. I thought you a reasonable amount of science, I am coming to a conclusion that you know practically nothing you just mix waffle and a few buzz words like Juvenissum.

Which, coincidentally is one of the reasons hydroplate theory doesn't work. friction and resistance create heat and we see that, we just have a lot of time to play with and a large area.

Impossible if you compress the resistance and friction you have already complained about into a short time frame you melt the whole earth, you destroyed your argument yourself but weren't on the ball enough to spot it.

How can a flood subside on to the ocean floor, that is more meaningless waffle. And some mountain ranges - the new ones - are "sharp" like the Himalayas and the Alps, because the mountains are being formed in front of our very eyes.

Others like The Grampians and the Appalachians are lower and more rounded because they are much older, flood "geology" cannot explain these differences because they think all mountains were formed at the same time, uniformitarianism means we know mountain ranges formed at different times and have had different amounts of erosional processes acting on them.

[/QUOTE]

I did the same google search as you, but found no data. If the heat of the earth were fueled by radioactivity, I expect people would be paranoid about radioactive lava, yet that is not the case. It’s true that some radioactive elements have extremely long half-lives, but that’s because they’re extremely stable, thus making them a poor source of heat. From what I’ve read, they’re also quite dilute and make up a small percentage of matter.

The rate of heat transfer is quicker the greater the difference in temperature. Right now, incoming solar radiation, incoming heat from the interior of the earth, and heat escaping into space are in equipoise. If the surface of the earth were to suddenly heat up well past equilibrium, a lot of heat would be dissipated into space, and that dissipation would occur quite rapidly.

In fact, I do think that large parts of the earth literally melted. Everywhere I look, even out my window as I type, I see incredibly massive evidence of volcanic activity.

If the subterranean chambers containing massive amounts of water released their water, the pressure from the earth above would cause the chambers to collapse, creating huge basins. Hence the continental shelfs.

Sadly, a lot of geologists and scientists in general reaction with pure derision whenever anyone suggests God as a cause of anything, or that the Bible accurately described past events. The result is that hydroplate theory is in its infancy because no one will study the theory or seek to refine it. What is needed is a hugely complex model that takes runs the theory through optimizing simulations and applies it to a high degree of granularity to a whole host of physical phenomena.

I can only say that the hydroplate theory fits the first principles that I use to validate the general feasibility of scientific models. I don't have the skills to run optimization analysis and refine the assumptions, or test its predictive power. I have understood for years in reading scientific papers on geology that scientists often discover very unusual data, but can't make sense of it because they aren't running the data through the right paradigm. Perhaps in the future you will run across such data and consider whether hydroplate theory or some other creationist theory is a better match.

 

[True_Blue]

Appreciate your post, but I won't be able to read it adequately, think about it, and respond for 1-2 days.

 

[Vene]

Both evolutionists and creationists essentially believe in spontaneous generation. It's more reasonable to suppose that high complex life forms arose from intelligent design than random chance, which isn't exactly "probable." It's convenient for certain people, but not probable.

Where did the designer come from?

 

[Baggins]

If the earth were a molten ball of liquid rock, it will cool on the outside first. It will only solidify if it could do so in such a way as to resist the convection of the liquid magma underneath. Otherwise, the ball would take much longer to cool. So in an evolutionist paradigm, the crust would be a seamless layer of rock with no gradualist plate movement. I don't think magma convection explains the movement of the plates.

Instead of making up what you think scientists think about plate tectonics, why don't you actually read something about what they really think. I know you have this devastating hubris about your own intellectual superiority, but................ I don't know why I bother.

Start from the simple:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics

that is what it is

To the more complex:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/w449k28003h477m7/

When and how did plate tectonics begin? Theoretical and empirical considerations

they actually model the early earth using evidence rather than flights of fancy.

How could it hurt to learn something?

 

[Baggins]

I did the same google search as you, but found no data.

You didn't look hard enough or use google scholar then, there are loads of papers out there incorporating the idea of radioactive decay providing heat to power plate tectonics. Even wikipedia has stuff on this:

The discovery of radium and its associated heating properties in 1896 prompted a re-examination of the apparent age of the Earth

As you can see the idea is only 120 years old, so it has probably yet to make it into Creationist circles as they can be a bit slow on keeping up with geological developments.

If the heat of the earth were fueled by radioactivity, I expect people would be paranoid about radioactive lava,

It's a good job that they don't know about the earths natural radioactivity then. In fact lots of people who live around granite plutons do

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granite

Granite is a normal, geological source of radiation in the natural environment. Granite contains around 10 to 20 parts per million of uranium. By contrast, more mafic rocks such as tonalite, gabbro or diorite have 1 to 5 ppm uranium, and limestones and sedimentary rocks usually have equally low amounts.

As Thaum has already explained very well.

yet that is not the case.

Just because the proles don't know a scientific fact is not evidence that the fact is not real, even a creationist can't believe that surely?

Also eruptive magmas are not very radioactive - Thaum has already explained all this to you.

It’s true that some radioactive elements have extremely long half-lives, but that’s because they’re extremely stable, thus making them a poor source of heat.

Depends how much of them there is really, and there is a lot, enough to heat the earth at any rate as the temperature is known

From what I’ve read, they’re also quite dilute and make up a small percentage of matter.

Again doesn't matter, it is a known phenomena with measurable affects, that it destroys your fantasy paradigm is painful for you perhaps but tough, truth is truth and facts are facts.

The rate of heat transfer is quicker the greater the difference in temperature. Right now, incoming solar radiation, incoming heat from the interior of the earth, and heat escaping into space are in equipoise.

Evidence for this please, I will not accept unevidenced assertions from you, even a wiki page would be nice.

If the surface of the earth were to suddenly heat up well past equilibrium, a lot of heat would be dissipated into space, and that dissipation would occur quite rapidly.

So what?

In fact, I do think that large parts of the earth literally melted. Everywhere I look, even out my window as I type, I see incredibly massive evidence of volcanic activity.

Where do you live Hawaii?

A lot of the earth is still liquid, I know that may come as a shock to you, but looking at earthquake P and S waves proves it.

If the subterranean chambers containing massive amounts of water released their water,

What chambers? In 20 years in the exploration geophysics industry I have never seen any chambers in the earths crust, they would extremely easy to spot using seismology after all.

And don't say they collapsed, a massive number of collapsed chambers would also be extremely noticeable in a seismic section.

the pressure from the earth above would cause the chambers to collapse, creating huge basins. Hence the continental shelfs.

really, I'd ask for some evidence but, let's face it, there is none is there.

Priceless

Sadly, a lot of geologists and scientists in general reaction with pure derision whenever anyone suggests God as a cause of anything

Quite rightly as invoking god is the end of science not part of it.

or that the Bible accurately described past events.

A lot of it isn't even historically accurate let alone scientifically accurate.

The result is that hydroplate theory is in its infancy because no one will study the theory or seek to refine it.

Not even those who postulated it it seems, perhaps they gave up because it was obviously rubbish

What is needed is a hugely complex model that takes runs the theory through optimizing simulations and applies it to a high degree of granularity to a whole host of physical phenomena.

what a shame none of you have it.

I can only say that the hydroplate theory fits the first principles that I use to validate the general feasibility of scientific models.

Very low standards I'd imagine then. it certainly doesn't satisfy me, but then I am a real scientist not a lawyer or engineer.

I don't have the skills to run optimization analysis and refine the assumptions, or test its predictive power.

Just make it all up then.

I have understood for years in reading scientific papers on geology that scientists often discover very unusual data, but can't make sense of it because they aren't running the data through the right paradigm.

Examples?

I am a betting man, I am offering good odds that this is just another bit of waffle that will never be backed up.

I we are really lucky we will get a geological PRATT list with fossilised coal miners sandwiches et al.

Perhaps in the future you will run across such data and consider whether hydroplate theory or some other creationist theory is a better match.

Doubtful as I am not a Christian and I can't see any other reason to believe this guff

 

[thaumaturgy]

If the heat of the earth were fueled by radioactivity, I expect people would be paranoid about radioactive lava, yet that is not the case.

Then perhaps you should respond to the topic I raised about the correlation between certain rock types and radon levels HERE?

That is assuming the logical fault of equating "paranoia" about a topic equals validity of the topic.

It’s true that some radioactive elements have extremely long half-lives, but that’s because they’re extremely stable, thus making them a poor source of heat. From what I’ve read, they’re also quite dilute and make up a small percentage of matter.

Please do not assume that small numbers mean small effects. We are talking about an entire planet and indeed the heat flux from within to without the planet is a function not just of the difference in temperature but also the thermal insulative and conductive properties of the rock and materials.

If the subterranean chambers containing massive amounts of water released their water, the pressure from the earth above would cause the chambers to collapse, creating huge basins. Hence the continental shelfs.

Sadly, a lot of geologists and scientists in general reaction with pure derision whenever anyone suggests God as a cause of anything, or that the Bible accurately described past events.

OK, you've made yet another specious, fallacious claim here. Let's outline it:

You came up with some "explanation" involving the collapse of internal cavities and their role in formation of continental shelves. Then you complain that people don't treat the "God Hypothesis" with appropriate respect.

Those are two wholly different things. YOU have provided a direct physical "cause and effect" example. It is open to any amount of proof or disproof that any claim in the physical science is open to. Unfortuantely it is far less likely than the more standard scientific explanations.

SECONDLY, science is silent on God. The God Hypothesis doesn't pass muster to be included as a workable hypothesis owing to the numerous inconsistencies among "believers" and the fact that you cannot propose an hypothesis that is not objectively testable and resonably experienced the same way by all observers.

Now, if you want to just throw your hands up and say "God did this" then dispense with any and all attempts to bring in the physical or natural. Those are relatively well understood with a few gaps. But if you wish to invoke God then you aren't doing science.

The result is that hydroplate theory is in its infancy because no one will study the theory or seek to refine it.

Isn't that convenient? That way Creationists can do what they usually do; spout it off without a firm data set to support it, and when asked for data to support a claim, pout that it isn't given a fair shake at funding and research! It's win-win! In fact, it's the usual type of win Creationists specialize in!

Persecution = no data, no data = controversy, controversy = win!

Win = God.

God = Yahweh, so take that Islam, Hinduism, etc. etc.

What is needed is a hugely complex model that takes runs the theory through optimizing simulations and applies it to a high degree of granularity to a whole host of physical phenomena.

Well, that and, of course, actively ignoring the tons and tons and tons of data that point to an old earth model that explains all the things the Hydroplate Theory attempts to explain without resort to strange physics and bizarre assumptions.

I can only say that the hydroplate theory fits the first principles that I use to validate the general feasibility of scientific models.

I recommend you learn some of the science incumbent on these two topics (geology and chemistry) before you "assess" their validity. It would certainly help.

I don't have the skills to run optimization analysis and refine the assumptions, or test its predictive power.

As we saw in the Chemistry section of this debate you are more than happy to run some numbers as long as you can choose the process. Unfortuantely you were unwilling to take Temperate's Challenge so we cannot tell how "effective" your numbers are in a testable scenario.

Well, to be fair, we already knew that in your bypassing of the fundamentals of chemistry you weren't going to get the right answer likely anyway, so I have to wonder why you didn't try it out. Were you unsure of your OP calculations?

Why do Creationists only want to test things when they get to choose what is tested?

I have understood for years in reading scientific papers on geology

Really?

that scientists often discover very unusual data, but can't make sense of it because they aren't running the data through the right paradigm.

There's that "word" again. "Paradigm". Whenever I hear it my brain says: "PostModernist Junk Word that People who Don't Understand Science Use to Critique Science"

You are right, there are mysteries out there yet to be solved. We are working to learn. Unfortunately invoking supernatural or unevidence guesses or twisting standard physics to suit yourself doesn't really assist in learning anything in a scientific standard.

Perhaps in the future you will run across such data and consider whether hydroplate theory or some other creationist theory is a better match.

Indeed. But it won't be because Creationists are doing any work on it. If Hydroplate theory proved somehow to be "real" by any stretch, keep in mind it was originally hypothesized not based on a preponderance of data, but rather so that someone could make a story in the Bible match the world around them.

Creationists are really good at just throwing stuff out there with hopes something will stick. But as for the rubber-meeting-the-road aspect of the hard work, they seem to be lax. I don't see much science coming out of Creationism. I see a lot of guesses followed by whines that no one takes them serious enough to fund their research.

Yet an expensive "Creation Museum" get built in Kentucky. Hmmmm.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Both evolutionists and creationists essentially believe in spontaneous generation. It's more reasonable to suppose that high complex life forms arose from intelligent design than random chance, which isn't exactly "probable." It's convenient for certain people, but not probable.

Are you yet again referring to chemistry as "random chance" because you have forgotten the earlier discussion wherein chemistry was shown unequivocally not to be "random chance" or because you harbor some egoistic intution that chemistry really is "random chance" in spite of the fact that it isn't?

 

[mpok1519]

chemistry isnt random.

And life one earth isnt random.

A one in a trillion chance isn't random; its a minute, but very existent and possible probability; not only is it a possibility, but its only a matter of time until it becomes reality.

Its not random; did you know that nothing in life is random? a computerized random number generator cannot randomly generate numbers; it must pick them discriminately.

EVERYTHING happens for a reason.

 

[Naraoia]

a computerized random number generator cannot randomly generate numbers; it must pick them discriminately.

Which makes me wonder about a completely unrelated tangent.

If quantum computing ever becomes a reality, would such a computer be able to exploit the (apparently) random nature of quantum phenomena and generate true random numbers?

(Someone should find a way to shut down my random question generator. It's the most annoying thing to have when it's coupled with not enough perseverance to find out the answers )

 

[pgp_protector]

Which makes me wonder about a completely unrelated tangent.

If quantum computing ever becomes a reality, would such a computer be able to exploit the (apparently) random nature of quantum phenomena and generate true random numbers?

(Someone should find a way to shut down my random question generator. It's the most annoying thing to have when it's coupled with not enough perseverance to find out the answers )

That depends on if Quantum phenomena are truly random

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That depends on if Quantum phenomena are truly random

According to quantum mechanics, it is . Plus, so-called "hidden variable" theories (the theory that apparently random behaviour is governed by unknown variables) have been shown to be unable to account for quantum mechanical behaviour.

Besides, why should the universe be deterministic? It's not like it has a mandate to be comprehensible to the human mind. After all, we evolved in Middle-World, amidst middle-sized things and medium speeds. To paraphrase Dawkins .

 

[True_Blue]

chemistry isnt random.

And life one earth isnt random.

A one in a trillion chance isn't random; its a minute, but very existent and possible probability; not only is it a possibility, but its only a matter of time until it becomes reality.

Its not random; did you know that nothing in life is random? a computerized random number generator cannot randomly generate numbers; it must pick them discriminately.

EVERYTHING happens for a reason.

This is a very interesting post, because it's absolutely true, and yet comes to the opposite conclusion. You're right--chemistry is not purely random. However, the non-random effects of chemistry operate in a way opposed to life, not in favor of it. Life forms survive because their design grabs chemistry by the horns and forces chemistry to do the work of life. Chemistry itself is powerless to create live.

A random number generator is only approximately random--the output is ultimately a product of the ordered math that spawned the numbers. But just like chemistry and abiogenesis, the minute non-randomness is far from sufficient to allow the generation of a even a mildly complex computer program, even with an effectively infinite amount of time allocated for the generation of numbers.

Everything does happen for a reason. If one believes this statement, then one must believe in God, because reason is an attribute that does not exist in the absence of both consciousness and personality. If things in nature exist for a reason, an exogenous consciousness and personality must give effect to that reason.

 

[True_Blue]

Which makes me wonder about a completely unrelated tangent.

If quantum computing ever becomes a reality, would such a computer be able to exploit the (apparently) random nature of quantum phenomena and generate true random numbers?

(Someone should find a way to shut down my random question generator. It's the most annoying thing to have when it's coupled with not enough perseverance to find out the answers )

The NSA and the US military use codes derived from random electromagnetic noise. However, that statement presupposes that electromagnetic noise is random. In this case, a physical source outside the pure logic of the computer is the source of the randomness.

 

[True_Blue]

According to quantum mechanics, it is . Plus, so-called "hidden variable" theories (the theory that apparently random behaviour is governed by unknown variables) have been shown to be unable to account for quantum mechanical behaviour.

Besides, why should the universe be deterministic? It's not like it has a mandate to be comprehensible to the human mind. After all, we evolved in Middle-World, amidst middle-sized things and medium speeds. To paraphrase Dawkins .

If God did not exist, there would be no reason to believe that the universe is deterministic. But if in the course of observation we learn that the universe is apparently deterministic, that's powerful evidence of the existence of God.

 

[True_Blue]

Two things:

1. The HEAT will only start to decay exponentially when the fuel is depleted and the earth is just radiating heat.

Just like your example of the open oven. If the heat is still on the oven will not cool.

2. The fuel is still in the process of being consumed. Indeed radioactive decay is an example of first order rate kinetic and does decay non-linearly. HOWEVER, the decay is in the presence of the parent isotope. Many of the parent isotopes give rise to radioactive daughters which, themselves, decay along a different first order curve. But indeed the fuel is being consumed. Just as when we turn on the oven and use up electricity we are consuming the coal that makes the electricity. That doesn't mean YOU can measure the amount of "decay of coal" by tracking the temperature in your oven over 15 minutes while it's on. Do you get this point?

Now, we know for a fact that radioactive decay of elements in the earth is going on and causing heat. There is a measured geothermal gradient and we know quite a bit about the mineralogy of the mantle and, owing to the presence of p and s-wave shadow zones and travel times measured daily all over the globe, we know approximately what state many of these zones are in, be they liquid or solid or "plastic". Kimberlite pipes and other "windows" into the mantle give us some idea of the pressure and temperature regimes (as evidenced by the mineral assemblages present) down deep.

ALL THAT leads us to the conclusions that the deeper you go into the earth the hotter it is. Indeed it is still hot down there. Like the open oven that is still on, we have fuel keeping the processes running.

You've been shown ample evidence that the plates are still moving so where is the mystery? Why make claims that are not supported by the evidence?

If you think the plates were whipping around much faster in the past, then please explain the dating/distance curve from the Hawai'ian island chain or the magnetic anomalies around the spreading centers.

Do you not believe there are radioactive materials in rocks? Do you not believe in Uranium, Thorium or K-40?

If you would like, HERE is a discussion of some of the details around heat flux and geothermal gradients.

Radiation is a fact of life with rocks. It may not be that you will be immediately radioactively poisoned by going up to a piece of granite but it is likely to contain a certain amount of radioactive material. Look at the little pink minerals. Those are a mineral called orthoclase and it has the chemical formula KAlSi3O8, that K is a give away there. About 1 in 10,000 atoms of potassium is K-40 (approximately), and that's radioactive. In addition Uranium likes to hang out in "felsic" igneous rocks. It's part of the chemistry of this element and these rocks. That's why pegmatites which are even more "felsic", often contain abundant uranium minerals. In addition there are a number of other naturally occuring radioactive elements that are in various igneous rocks and in the magma that makes them, as well as sprinkled throughout the earth in other rocks.

The point being that while an individual chunk of regular rock may not be radioactive enough to melt another rock, the whole of the mantle of the earth plus the "insulative" properties of the huge mass of rock that is the earth, helps to provide enough heat to do the job.

There's no magic there. It's a matter of scale and interacting effects. There isn't a mystery to my knowledge.

I'm not a specialist in radiogenic isotopes, but I do know enough to understand why some cities that are built over large concentrations of certain types of rock have a radon problem in their homes (LINKY).

Well, it certainly has all the hallmarks:

1. Oversimplied to the point of cartoonish.
2. Ignorance of any underlying "detail"
3. Presupposition of an outcome

Yup, I bet it is a new evidence of creationism!

Except we do see the plates moving daily and we see Mt. Everest still growing at about 3cm/yr (SOURCE)

.

I would be happy to elaborate on the magnetic anomalies. [The following is a theory, and may very well not be accurate.] As the sea floor was spreading and the plates were subducting, the subducting plates interfered with the convection of the magma, in turn wrecking havoc with the magnetic field, in turn causing the "sea floor stripes" by which we know the magnetic field was variable. There is a causal relationship between the sea floor spreading and and the magnetic field. The more subduction took place (all over the world, by the way), the more the magnetic field "flipped out." By extension, I believe this explanation is also applicable to the Hawaiian chain.

The deeper you go, the more pressure that the matter is exposed to. Pressure increases with temperature...I believe the earth remains hot because of thermal inertia. It was created hot, and it remains hot.

With regard to the measured geothermal gradient, such gradients are also present in the open ocean. The thermoclines play havoc with Navy sonar, which must be adjusted to compensate for the effect. When I go SCUBA diving, I notice the thermoclines as well. It stands to reason that such temperature gradients are present beneath the earth by virtue of the fluidic condition of the mantle. It’s not evidence that radioactivity is a significant energy source (I agree that it’s an energy source, but a highly insignificant energy source).

It's obvious that the plates are now moving, but at such an insignificant rate that for all intents and purposes, they've now settled. I accept that the increase in height of Mt. Everest and other mountains can be measured to the required degree of accuracy. It makes sense to suppose that the change in elevation is non-linear rather than constant.

So, if (and I believe it’s true), mountains cause the bottom of lithospheric plates to be more rough and uneven than they otherwise would be, would not erosion on the bottom of the plates cause the mountains to slowly subsist over very long time scales? On what basis could one say that the increase in elevation from plate tectonics would outweigh subsistence from localized sub-lithospheric erosion?

 

[True_Blue]

You didn't look hard enough or use google scholar then, there are loads of papers out there incorporating the idea of radioactive decay providing heat to power plate tectonics. Even wikipedia has stuff on this:

What chambers? In 20 years in the exploration geophysics industry I have never seen any chambers in the earths crust, they would extremely easy to spot using seismology after all.

Baggins, the operative word is “data.” I found plenty of articles on theories, but no data.

Also, the Bible says that “ALL of the springs of the great deep burst forth.” I would be utterly unsurprised if no reservoirs remained to be discovered. There would be nothing to discover. When you saw the word "chamber," what specifically were you thinking of?