Proof against abiogenesis/evolution -- affirmative proof of God

[True_Blue]

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.

Ok, I'm hoping that you'll provide a basis for this statement. So far, the only attempt has been a reference to Glenn Morton, which I've addressed. Perhaps I missed a point earlier in the thread.

 

[Baggins]

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?

In that case contact the writers of the paper you are interested in and ask them if they can provide the data, most researchers will be happy to do this if it is not owned by a third party.

Then you will have a huge pile of data and not a clue what to do with it so you can go back to the original paper

So there were huge chambers of water in the earth that were voided but left no traces either as voids or collapsed voids.

I have no idea what you mean by chamber, and I doubt whether you do either. I imagine you started off thinking of large caves in the earth's crust, your post seems to suggest that when you said they later collapsed and formed the continental shelf. Now you have realised how ridiculous that idea is you seem to be fishing around for something more plausible, with no luck as yet, so you are asking me for an explanation of what chamber means. I have no idea what you are on about it is your fantasy.

Ye gods we are getting into " invisible pink unicorns did it" territory now aren't we, AV's " a big boy did it and ran away" scenario, god cleaning everything up for sanitary reasons.

It is not my fault if your fantasies don't coincide with reality when tested against it and I am sorry my imagination is up to the job of coming up with what you mean by the word chamber.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

True Blue Wrote:

If the earth were a molten ball of liquid rock, it will cool on the outside first.

True in a sense; the outer regions would cool faster than the interior, but it would all be cooling, unless of course there was an internal energy source such as Al, which is produced in radiogenic forms in stars.

Isotopes

IsotopeHalf LifeAl-26, 730000.0 years Al-27, Stable Al-28, 2.3 minutes

It will only solidify if it could do so in such a way as to resist the convection of the liquid magma underneath.

Totally wrong, convection is a far more efficient way to loss heat as compared to the alternative which is conduction. It is this convection that transports energy for the outer core to the earth’s surface.


Otherwise, the ball would take much longer to cool.

Wrong again; convection is far more efficient than conduction at removing energy.

This is basic 15 year old physics and chemistry.


So in an evolutionist paradigm, the crust would be a seamless layer of rock with no gradualist plate movement.

As already explained, convection is the most efficient method of heat transfer and plate tectonics is just the surface manifestation of this process.


I don't think magma convection explains the movement of the plates.

It is NOT MAGMA CONVECTION, it is mantle convection and the mantle is a ductile SOLID.

MANTLE CONVECTION

 

[Baggins]

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.

I would like a detailed explanation of how subduction affected the magnetic polarity recorded of sea floor thousands of miles away.

You may have discovered an electro-magnetic mechanism completely unknown to science, or you could be making things up off the top of your head again.

But basically i think you are right, this is not very accurate at all.

I fail to see how subduction can affect the earth's magnetic field and that is what sets the polarity of the iron minerals in the magma as it solidifies.

Nul point

There is a causal relationship between the sea floor spreading and and the magnetic field.

Explain in detail what it is.

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.

This is a great fantasy you are having today, I love it. Mechanism please, how does subduction play havoc with the earth's magnetic field?

The deeper you go, the more pressure that the matter is exposed to. Pressure increases with temperature.

are you sure, workings please?

..I believe the earth remains hot because of thermal inertia. It was created hot, and it remains hot.

So despite all the papers showing that radioactive decay keeps the earth hot and that the earth would have cooled in about 10-30 million years without radioactive decay, as Lord Kelvin found over 100 years ago, you'd still prefer to believe the above because you haven't seen the raw data of radioactive heating which you wouldn't understand even if it was presented to you uninterpreted?

Excellent good for you.

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.

Thermoclines in water have got nothing to do with thermoclines in the earths rock.

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).

I'd like to see your maths showing this please.

A quick google search found over 6,000 papers describing the way that radioactive decay helps drive mantle convection, and yet you in your hubris do not agree with these professional geologists and geophysicists.

It's obvious that the plates are now moving

I wasn't obvious to you a couple of days ago, so obviously you are prepared to bow to reality in some cases. How long before you bow to the reality of the significance of radioactive decay in keeping the planet hot?

but at such an insignificant rate that for all intents and purposes, they've now settled.

That is rubbish, It doesn't matter how slow the rates are given the time scales involved.

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.

Why does this make sense, evidence please. Doesn't make any sense to me and I have studied geology for 25 years.

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,

Why do you believe that to be true, evidence please. Your posts are just one unevidenced assertion after another and that doesn't make me happy.

Anybody can just make things up, that is not science that is science fiction.

would not erosion on the bottom of the plates cause the mountains to slowly subsist over very long time scales?

How? Mechanism, evidence, where are they?

On what basis could one say that the increase in elevation from plate tectonics would outweigh subsistence from localized sub-lithospheric erosion?

You haven't demonstrated any sub-lithospheric erosion you have asserted it.

First you need to measure this sub-lithospheric erosion then you need to demonstrate that it is greater than the speed of crustal uplift due to plate collision.

Until you do that this is just fantasy again. Always the same with creationists zero evidence, that is why creationism isn't science.

Thank you for demonstrating that salient point so eloquently

 

[Baggins]

Ok, I'm hoping that you'll provide a basis for this statement. So far, the only attempt has been a reference to Glenn Morton, which I've addressed. Perhaps I missed a point earlier in the thread.

You didn't address Glenn Morton's thorough rebuttal of hydroplate theory you hand waved it away.

If you think you can address his points then please do.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

True Blue wrote

fluidic condition of the mantle.


THE MANTLE IS NOT FLUID, THIS IS A SCHOOL BOY ERROR.

THE MANTLE IS SOLID.

Seismologists detected a lens-shaped structure (blue) within a large pile of chemically distinct material at the boundary between the liquid outer core and the solid mantle, half-way to the center of the Earth. The tubes rising from the edges of the pile represent plumes of hot mantle material rising toward the surface. The core-mantle boundary is the curved orange surface, and the small red ball is the solid inner core. (Image by Edward Garnero)
Link

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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.

Why? It just shows that the universe is deterministic. Where does the "Therefore, God" conclusion come from?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

True Blue wrote

fluidic condition of the mantle.


THE MANTLE IS NOT FLUID, THIS IS A SCHOOL BOY ERROR.

THE MANTLE IS SOLID.

o_0

What madness is this?

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

o_0

What madness is this?

Madness: I hope you are not suggesting the mantle is anything other than solid?

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

o_0

What madness is this?

Madness? THIS...IS...GEOLOGYYYY!!!!!!!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Madness: I hope you are not suggesting the mantle is anything other than solid?

I always thought it was made of molten rock. I didn't think solid rock could have convection currents .

 

[thaumaturgy]

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.

NOTE TO BIOCHEMISTS: Bite it suckers! Ha!

You biochemists and all your fancy pantsy "chemistry". Krebs Cycles and Glycolysis pathways and all those big words! They are meaningless. Every day you breathe is a miracle! A MIRACLE! Yay! Just take the simple act of procreation! It's a MIRACLE! Some day science may understand this miracle. Until then the scientists will have to sit and stare at the naked ladies in the magazines until a provable experiment comes to their heads.

(Sorry female scientists, but you'll have to stare at the naked ladies too.)

Hey, since we're going to have a lot of former scientists around when we finally get rid of science, what are they all gonna do? I know! They can all become lawyers! It's gotta be easy. No real "learning" necessary apparently.

And hey, I'm already more than half-way there because I can use some random latin phrases! Watch:

[Lawyer Mode]
Quicquid acquietur servo, acquietur domino.
In the present sense I wish the defended to realize that I consider this to be estoppel owing to the laches defense.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
I demand certiorari!
[/Lawyer Mode]

There, see, I may as well be in front of a judge just adjudicating right and left. I know absolutely as much as any lawyer because I've got some words there. AND technically speaking, I've taken a "law" class in the Extension Service here at the local University of California. So I'm ready to be hang out me shingle.

NOTE TO STATE BAR EXAM:Bite it! Sucker Lawyers who studied to get it, I want my law credentials to be honored.

You see, I approach the law not from a "technical understanding" of it, but rather from a sense of entitlement that my "insight" is equivalent to those who have spent years studying it. I don't bother with "learning it", I rather just use my instinct and "first principles" (ab initio as we latin-savvy lawyers like to say) to formulate the most logical and meaningful critiques of the Law.

And just to drive the point home, here's a legal citation:

In the matter of:
Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc. 296 F. 3d 894, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, July 24, 2002
(LINK)

QEfD.

 

[Tiberius]

According to the WIKI ARTICLE, the mantle is plastic.

 

[thaumaturgy]

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.

Firstly: The thermocline is the "relatively thin" layer at the top of the ocean water column where temperature drops with depth.



And indeed below the thermocline there is the much more stable, unmixed (or weakly mixed) water that carries with it a much more "constant" temperature.

The SOFAR channel to which I think you might be referring to later on is the "Sound Fixing and Ranging" Channel:

This represents a kind of "sweet spot" between the steadily increasing pressure with depth and the more variable decrease and somewhat levelling off of temperature with depth resulting in a "sound speed minimum" in the water column which provides for a zone of extremely long-range transmission of soundwaves, especially low frequency which tend to lose less energy to dispersion than high frequency. In addition the "edges" of the SOFAR channel allow for the refraction of the soundwaves back in toward the center.

Here's a much more elegant description of the SOFAR channel (LINKY)

(In case anyone was interested. I feel I have to talk about this since I was recently selected as a question writer for an oceanographic science bowl competition)

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).

Highly insignificant? Why?

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.

Tell it to our friends in Northridge.

 

[thaumaturgy]

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

It would indeed be really really nice if the data repositories were open to the public. I recommend that if this really interests you enough to learn it, you might wish to visit a local university. Your profile note says you are in Missouri now (?). One of my alma maters is in that state. There are many great geology departments there, not the least of which are:

University of Missouri Rolla
University of Missouri Columbia
Washington University (St. Louis)

Wash U. has some top-notch Ivy league type folks while Columbia has some great academic geologists and Rolla is where you go for the engineers and hard number folks. I don't know about SLU's geology program or the programs at SEMO, UMSL, or Southwest Missouri, but I bet they will all have a lot of this data.

Certainly a quick spin through the geochemistry sections will provide you with ample data.

I dearly wish I could provide you with links to open source data on here or open-access articles, but my licenses are almost all for a different type of chemical journal these days.

So please, do drop by one of the fine geological repositories in the great state of Missouri.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Madness: I hope you are not suggesting the mantle is anything other than solid?

The mantle is, as someone else has pointed out, apparently "plastic", in that it deforms but does not rebound in an "elastic" manner. I have heard it described as "like play-doh" (Plasticene to our British friends, I believe).

Ductile solid is an excellent term one poster used.

 

[Baggins]

According to the WIKI ARTICLE, the mantle is plastic.

It is brittle over short time frames, so if you hit a piece of mantle with a hammer it would shatter, but it acts like a fluid over long time periods, in that it has convenction cells within it.

If you go and look at folded rocks you will see that something that is brittle has acted in a plastic manner because of the temperature and time frame involved.

But the mantle is definitely solid as thaum said, except when it isn't

 

[pgp_protector]

...snip...
But the mantle is definitely solid as thaum said, except when it isn't

Great, next you'll be saying light is a wave except when it's a particle

 

[Naraoia]

That depends on if Quantum phenomena are truly random

Ok, I know it does. That's why the "(apparently)". But it's still a fun idea. (BTW, I'm rooting for determinism )

 

[True_Blue]

True Blue wrote

fluidic condition of the mantle.


THE MANTLE IS NOT FLUID, THIS IS A SCHOOL BOY ERROR.

THE MANTLE IS SOLID.

Seismologists detected a lens-shaped structure (blue) within a large pile of chemically distinct material at the boundary between the liquid outer core and the solid mantle, half-way to the center of the Earth. The tubes rising from the edges of the pile represent plumes of hot mantle material rising toward the surface. The core-mantle boundary is the curved orange surface, and the small red ball is the solid inner core. (Image by Edward Garnero)
Link

I said "fluidic." Even glass has fluidic properties. The bottom line is that if the mantle convects, it is "fluidic."