My Tectonic Plates Challenge

[amanuensis63]

Please show me one passage of Scripture that has been put through the scientific method and has come out as predicted.

You didn't answer my question and it also appears you are not understanding what I have written.

 

[AV1611VET]

You didn't answer my question and it also appears you are not understanding what I have written.

I've answered more questions on here than you have posts, my friend.

I usually know when a question is valid, or if it is just ridicule behind a question mark.

And I'm not talking about your question.

I'm talking about those who [allegedly] question our faith under the pretense of honestly wanting to know the answer.

Usually the terminology is a dead giveaway.

Example: How did God poof this universe into existence?

- vs -

Example: How did God create this universe?

The first example tells me my answer will just be casting pearls.

The second example tells me he's either buffaloing me, or he honestly wants to know.

 

[Loudmouth]

Seven pieces of paper on a tabletop should have been a giveaway.

You wouldn't be able to cut the peel of an orange into seven pieces?

 

[AV1611VET]

You wouldn't be able to cut the peel of an orange into seven pieces?

Yes, but the edges of our contintents don't curve upward; and if you laid the peels downward, then they would bow upward in the middle.

In addition, two orange peels striking each other would just cause more bowing in the middle.

How then could you demonstrate mountain folds at the edges with orange peels?

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, but the edges of our contintents don't curve upward;

Why should they?

and if you laid the peels downward, then they would bow upward in the middle.

Doesn't the peel of an orange fit perfectly around the spherical fruit?

In addition, two orange peels striking each other would just cause more bowing in the middle.

It is only a limited analogy. Your paper model doesn't produce new paper where the plates are moving apart, as it does at the mid-ocean ridges. The direction of movement of your paper is not determined by their temperature and density as is the case with cold slab pull. You don't have paper being melted and erupting onto the other papers due to subduction of water carrying sediments.

How then could you demonstrate mountain folds at the edges with orange peels?

How do any of your models accurately demonstrate the processes of plate tectonics?

 

[AV1611VET]

Your paper model doesn't produce new paper where the plates are moving apart, as it does at the mid-ocean ridges. The direction of movement of your paper is not determined by their temperature and density as is the case with cold slab pull. You don't have paper being melted and erupting onto the other papers due to subduction of water carrying sediments.

So much for plate tectonics demonstrating a flat earth then.

I say flat earth cosmology can take a hike.

So the next time whitecoats say the Bible speaks of a flat earth, I hope they aren't trying to peel a piece of paper to eat it.

 

[Loudmouth]

So much for plate tectonics demonstrating a flat earth then.

I say flat earth cosmology can take a hike.

So the next time whitecoats say the Bible speaks of a flat earth, I hope they aren't trying to peel a piece of paper to eat it.

Plate tectonics disproves the Biblical flat earth.

 

[RickG]

Yes, but the edges of our contintents don't curve upward.

So mountains aren't formed when continental plates collide?

 

[Kylie]

Clear off a table in your house.

Place about 25-50 plates carefully on the table (overlapping them as needed).

Set the plates so that they are more or less uniformly spread out and stable.

Place a tablecloth over the plates.

Place a sheet of paper, cut into seven segments but all together as one sheet, on top of the tablecloth.

Lightly shake the table and observe the movement of the pieces of paper.

(Assume the table has an edge on it to keep the plates from falling off.)

Here's my challenge:

What have I just demonstrated?

Does your analogy to plate tectonics also replicate how new plate material is being formed where the plates are moving apart? No? Then why is this an analogy that I should concern myself with?

 

[AV1611VET]

Does your analogy to plate tectonics also replicate how new plate material is being formed where the plates are moving apart?

I don't know.

Try it and see.

No? Then why is this an analogy that I should concern myself with?

If you don't feel this challenge is for you, my suggestion would be to ignore it.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't know.

Try it and see.If you don't feel this challenge is for you, my suggestion would be to ignore it.

If you feel that this challenge has anything to do with reality, then you need to read up on geology before making another challenge.

 

[Kylie]

I don't know.

Try it and see.

The answer is no, it doesn't.

If you don't feel this challenge is for you, my suggestion would be to ignore it.

If the challenge leaves out a core part of what it is supposed to be an analogy for, why do you think it can tell us anything about the real world?

 

[AV1611VET]

If the challenge leaves out a core part of what it is supposed to be an analogy for, why do you think it can tell us anything about the real world?

Since when does the Core Part missing bother a scientist?

 

[Kylie]

Since when does the Core Part missing bother a scientist?

Yeah, that's not how science works. You seem to be very eager to demonize it, yet at the same time you are happy to enjoy the results of it. It seems rather hypocritical to me.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, that's not how science works. You seem to be very eager to demonize it, yet at the same time you are happy to enjoy the results of it. It seems rather hypocritical to me.

Demonize it?

I lift science (and scientists) up to a Higher Standard than most of they themselves aren't even willing to acknowledge exists.

 

[Kylie]

Demonize it?

I lift science (and scientists) up to a Higher Standard that most of they themselves aren't even willing to acknowledge exists.

Unfortunately, since you actually understand very little of science, you do not know enough to set a reasonable standard.

What you are doing is like judging a bird on it's ability to melt iron ore. Go and educate yourself about science, then you'll be in a position to do what you claim to do.

 

[AV1611VET]

Unfortunately, since you actually understand very little of science, you do not know enough to set a reasonable standard.

But I do know height.

So whereas scientists are stuck on things ...

Ecclesiastes 1:14 I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.

... where their nearsighted reality is ...

Ecclesiastes 1:14 I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.

... I am not hindered by such a myopic view, and can indeed hold them to a Higher Standard.

If scientists can hold me to Linnaeus' classification system, then I can certainly hold them to a Higher Standard as well.

Not that Linnaeus' classification system is a "higher standard," per se.

It's actually quite low.

But considering where it comes from ...

 

[Kylie]

But I do know height.

So whereas scientists are stuck on things ...

Ecclesiastes 1:14 I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.

... where their nearsighted reality is ...

Ecclesiastes 1:14 I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.

... I am not hindered by such a myopic view, and can indeed hold them to a Higher Standard.

If scientists can hold me to Linnaeus' classification system, then I can certainly hold them to a Higher Standard as well.

Not that Linnaeus' classification system is a "higher standard," per se.

It's actually quite low.

But considering where it comes from ...

Translation: Scientists disagree with my old book, therefore they are wrong. My old book is always correct. It even says so in the old book.

*Sigh*

 

[AV1611VET]

Translation: Scientists disagree with my old book, therefore they are wrong. My old book is always correct. It even says so in the old book.

*Sigh*

Translation: Where the Bible disagrees with science, science is wrong.

*Smile*

 

[Kylie]

Translation: Where the Bible disagrees with science, science is wrong.

*Smile*

Yeah, like when the Bible says that the stars can fall to Earth and science says they can't. Bible is "obviously" right there...

*Rolls eyes*