Which creation do creationists want us to believe took place?

[thaumaturgy]

Oh, no, you don't --- not this boy.

What's that old saying?

• Never argue with an atheist --- he will drag you down to his level, then beat you to death with experience.

I think the quote must be wrong there....it's drag you up to his level.

(I know, it is kind of mean of me to ask you to discuss plate tectonics using real plate tectonic concepts. It's unfair to you to ask you to back up your strange posts with actual information relevant to the topic at hand. I'm sorry.)

 

[thaumaturgy]

Example: without the hydrological cycle, then there will be no plate tectonics.

You could not separate the two.

Oh my. Someone please ask him to "flesh" that point out a bit.

(This would be interesting if he'd actually say something in detail about this, but past experience has indicated no such pleasure will be achieved here.)

 

[Nathan Poe]

Oh my. Someone please ask him to "flesh" that point out a bit.

(This would be interesting if he'd actually say something in detail about this, but past experience has indicated no such pleasure will be achieved here.)

Alas, I suspect it's a vain attempt by a creationist to sound clever while saying nothing of substance.

 

[MoonLancer]

Just for fun. What you say about the moving speed of this one:

I would say wind

 

[MoonLancer]

I don't care what is the default position. We are talking about science.

Yes we are, and Thus you should respect the default position of SCIENCE!!!

 

[MoonLancer]

If I went out into the woods and dragged a log for 30 yards, then set the log down; and later someone notices that the log seems to be moving at the rate of 1 inch per year, he may [wrongly] conjecture that that log as been around for at least 1080 years.

You would leave footprints as well. Their would also be a difference in the disturbance from when you dragged it and it somehow was dragged by itself (?wind?)

 

[juvenissun]

Huh!? How!?

You are surprised because you only see a simple version of the water cycle. Take a look on what kind of gas volcanoes erupt? Mostly water. Would you say those water is not part of the water cycle?

And there is a deeper side of it. The earth is "created" with the water cycle in function. Take a look on Venus and Mars. They do not have water cycle, and they do not have plate tectonics.

This is also why the Noah's Flood is so critical. No Noah's Flood, no current earth. I guess AV have put out one challenge along this thread.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes we are, and Thus you should respect the default position of SCIENCE!!!

In science, there is no such thing.

 

[MoonLancer]

This is also why the Noah's Flood is so critical. No Noah's Flood, no current earth. I guess AV have put out one challenge along this thread.

I do not think you have shown this to be case good sir. Please provide the evidence why Noah's flood is required for a current earth.

 

[juvenissun]

I would say wind

Why is there no cracks along the track?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Hmmm, interesting. Something I'd not heard. There are some geochemists who apparently feel that water is necessary to plate tectonics.

Here's the article (LINKY)

This research group at UCLA has reason to believe that plate tectonics may have fired up about 4 billion years ago (earlier than previous estimates).

Evidence for water on Earth during the planet's first 500 million years is now overwhelming, according to Harrison.

"You don't have plate tectonics on a dry planet," he said.

Strong evidence for liquid water at or near the Earth's surface 4.3 billion years ago was presented by Harrison and colleagues in a Jan. 11, 2001, cover story in Nature.

I am definitely going to have read up on this.

Here's an article I might have to go check out, as well:

Generation of plate tectonics from lithosphere–mantle flow and void–volatile self-lubrication
David Bercovici*
Department of Geology and Geophysics, School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology, University of Hawaii, 1680 East–West Road, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA



Abstract:
The formation of plate tectonics from mantle convection necessarily requires nonlinear rheological behavior. Recent studies suggest that self-lubricating rheological mechanisms are most capable of generating plate-like motion out of fluid flows. The basic paradigm of self-lubrication is nominally derived from the feedback between viscous heating and temperature-dependent viscosity. Here, we propose a new idealized self-lubrication mechanism based on void (e.g., pore and/or microcrack) generation and volatile (e.g., water) ingestion. We test this void–volatile self-lubrication mechanism in a source–sink flow model; this leads to a basic nonlinear system which permits the excitation of strike–slip (toroidal) motion (a necessary ingredient of plate-like motion) out of purely divergent (i.e., poloidal or characteristically convective) flow. With relatively inviscid void-filling volatiles, the void–volatile mechanism yields a state of highly plate-like motion (i.e., with uniformly strong “plate” interiors, weak margins, and extremely focussed strike–slip shear zones). Moreover, the void–volatile model obeys a chemical diffusion time scale that is typically much longer than the thermal convection time scale; the model thus complies with the observation that plate boundaries are long lived and survive even while inactive. The void–volatile model of self-lubrication therefore predicts self-focussing shear zones, plate generation, and plate-boundary longevity through what has long been suspected to be a key ingredient for the existence of plate tectonics, i.e., water.
(SOURCE)

Now, in my experience the "hydrologic cycle" is usually not taught in conjunction with juvenile water (magmatic water) which feeds into the more mundane hydrologic cycle we learn in undergrad and usually when I taught geology I didn't teach the hydrologic cycle in relation to magmatic water, I usually taught it as is usually taught thusly:

(SOURCE)

But surely in a liberal reading of the role of water in the lithosphere one could reason that water anywhere on earth is part of the "Hydrologic Cycle", so as not to belabor an overly pedantic point.

Interesting indeed.

(Now if only Juvenissun would have provided this interesting information so we wouldn't have to provide it for him! )

 

[juvenissun]

I do not think you have shown this to be case good sir. Please provide the evidence why Noah's flood is required for a current earth.

Again, what kind of evidence you like to see?

 

[Washington]

Take a look on what kind of gas volcanoes erupt? Mostly water. Would you say those water is not part of the water cycle?

So what if it is? It's a VERY, VERY small part of the cycle.
Are you under the impression that plate tectonics is dependent on volcanic eruptions? That it takes volcanism in order for plates to move? If so, you've got the cause and effect backward.

The earth is "created" with the water cycle in function.

???????????????????

Take a look on Venus and Mars. They do not have water cycle, and they do not have plate tectonics.

Gee, they don't have wind erosion and do not have plate tectonics.. If we got some enormous fans big enough to create a wind, suppose we could initiate plate tectonics there?

 

[Chalnoth]

You are surprised because you only see a simple version of the water cycle. Take a look on what kind of gas volcanoes erupt? Mostly water. Would you say those water is not part of the water cycle?

And there is a deeper side of it. The earth is "created" with the water cycle in function. Take a look on Venus and Mars. They do not have water cycle, and they do not have plate tectonics.

This is also why the Noah's Flood is so critical. No Noah's Flood, no current earth. I guess AV have put out one challenge along this thread.

You know, juvenissun, you could stand to explain yourself for once. I asked for you to explain how the water cycle has an effect upon plate tectonics. I did not ask for you to just repeat the assertion all over again.

 

[MoonLancer]

In science, there is no such thing.

Those who make claims should be the ones to provide the evidence and why the evidence is correct. Or is that not what we are talking about?

 

[Chalnoth]

In science, there is no such thing.

Then clearly you understand nothing about science. You see, in science there is something called a null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is the default position: experiments are performed and data collected in an attempt to reject the null hypothesis. Now, when introducing some new positive claim, the default position is always that it isn't true: the null hypothesis is that the positive claim is false.

You have yet to even attempt to show why we should reject the null hypothesis that there was no flood.

 

[MoonLancer]

Again, what kind of evidence you like to see?

You give the evidence and explain why it fits your preposition. That's how it works. Explain it to me like a research paper. Otherwise your just fishing for something in my request for the evidence that YOU should have provided to explain your original assertion.

To ask me what evidence I want to see is disingenuous because your really just asking me what kind of argument will persuade me. I will tell you upfront. What will persuade me is the evidence. I follow the evidence. Evolution has provided mountains of evidence, creation has provided non. Christianity has provided non. Hence my current stance. Looking for a fallacious "in" does not instill me with confidence that have evidence.

 

[Chalnoth]

But surely in a liberal reading of the role of water in the lithosphere one could reason that water anywhere on earth is part of the "Hydrologic Cycle", so as not to belabor an overly pedantic point.

Interesting indeed.

(Now if only Juvenissun would have provided this interesting information so we wouldn't have to provide it for him! )

Indeed. If only. However, I still object to the idea that this has anything to do with the hydrologic cycle, except in a very peripheral manner. Water may well be necessary for plate tectonics, but I don't see why a hydrological cycle would be necessary. That is, if the planet is frozen, so that no liquid water flows, but there is lots of water in the mantle and lower crust, might not the same basic effect be achieved?

 

[MoonLancer]

Why is there no cracks along the track?

Their are, you have to look hard, but they are their. honestly it looks like their might be some photoshop done, or just odd lighting. whatever the case, their are cracks if you look.

Edit

I enhanced the image levels and made an enlargement. No other doctoring was done to this photo.

 

[Chalnoth]

Sorry, MoonLancer, but the misuse of these particular words just gets a bit on my nerves. The correct word to use in your post was "there", not "their" (at each spot).

There: location.
Their: possessive (plural/gender neutral of his/her)
They're: they are.