Continental Drift

[TheBear]

Originally posted by Duane Morse
You may not be a scientist, nor am I.
But we are not stupid either. Nor unintelligent. The basic principles are not all that hard to understand. It is more a matter of looking at things objectively and trying to fit the pieces together.
The objectivity of either secular scientists or creation scientists always seem to me to stop at a certain point.
I, on the other hand, just want to know the Truth, whatever Truth is.
So I will look at all of it from every angle I can think of. Not only those fitting a certain set of objectives.
And if that leads to the Truth being found in science then I must accept it.
If it leads to the God of the Bible, or of Islam, I will accept it.
If it leads to everything being integrated, as I think it does, then that is what I accept.
Right now I think that the God of the Bible is the true God, and that evidence in the scientific realm supports that, and visa versa.
I just do not accept the conclusions that the current scientific community or the Christian community draw. They each want to exclude the other, and that I can not accept.
Everything must agree as one for me to be happy;-)

I am truly dumbfounded with this. I don't know where to begin to respond, or even if it's worth my time.

I made the claim that Continental Drift, according to all major geological institutes and scientists, has been occuring for hundreds of millions of years and beyond, at a relatively steady rate, thus disproving a young earth. You come back, trying to overturn geological positions on this, claiming that there was an accelerated rate, which slowed down due to friction. I asked you if your findings were corroborated in the scientific community. You never showed any scientific corroboration that friction has any effect on continental drift. Instead, you come back with ice core analysis. I asked where in the ice core analysis is an accelerated continental drift specifically indicated. You said you have no idea. I have asked for evidence in the mountain ranges that indicate major changes in the rate of continental drift. You have not provided any evidence in the mountain ranges that backs up your claim. You have yet to present anything except, "simple logic", even though you don't have all the facts as a basis for your "simple logic". And now, you "just do not accept the conclusions of the current scientific community.."

This is about as goofy as it gets..........well, maybe not. I'll stick around to see.

 

[TheBear]

Thanks for the link, seesaw.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by Morat
Bear: Nick believes that "real science" is data points alone, and that theories, hypothesis, or laws are "just imagination". So, measurements of contintenal movement are "real science" but plate tectonics is just "imagination".

  That might help you understand where he's coming from.   

  

Data points are statistical data...

Data points formulate theories/mathematical proofs...

Nick didn't study math?

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by TheBear
Geologists are in agreement that the Continental Drift creeps along at the speed of finger nail growth. If there was any major acceleration, or if this has drastically slowed down, it would be evident and recorded in the various mountain ranges, as Smilie alluded to.



Is there such indication in the mountains?

 

Major friction/collisions would cause major stress fractures (correct me if I'm wrong)...the mountain ranges (if formed in a very short time length...i.e. during a 40 days flood) would have MASSIVE stress fractures, cracks, ruptures.... none of which have been found by ACTUAL geological researchers.  Thus, their explanations which still stand today.  If a better explanation comes along...scientists WILL accept it.  Yet, mountains are formed over milleniums...not in a matter of months.  Current geological evidence concludes this.

 

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by npetreley
I'm not surprised you think they are credible. How do you feel about the fact that others may not agree that their conclusions are so credible? Is that acceptable to you?

I didn't accept that the Heaven's Gate cult believed a UFO was riding in the tail of the Haile-Boppe comet either.  They committed suicide with the belief they were going to board the space ship and fly away.  Is this belief acceptable to you?

Do you know ANYTHING concerning the geology of continental drift? Or do you just blindly discard it, in favor of what some pastor/teacher/preacher/cult leader has told you?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Smilin
Major friction/collisions would cause major stress fractures (correct me if I'm wrong)

That's the reason why creationists say the overthrust explanation for out-of-order fossils is wrong. There are no indications of friction and stress where there should be. But if the layers were deposited quickly by a catastrophe, there would be no friction or indications of stress, because the layers weren't placed by horizontal movement (overthrust).

Regardless, all the models have apparent problems. The biggest problems for old-earthers is that nobody was there to testify about what happened. Creationists have a written history of what happened, but it lacks details about how.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
That's the reason why creationists say the overthrust explanation for out-of-order fossils is wrong. There are no indications of friction and stress where there should be.

Pulling science out of your anal orifice again, eh?

 

[OneLargeToe]

biggest problems for old-earthers is that nobody was there to testify about what happened.

And THAT will always be your only final counter arguement.  "Hey, if you weren't there then you have NO idea what happened!  It's all crazy conjecture!"

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by Duane Morse
Hey Smilin,
http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/GISP2/DATA/fancy.html

Here is your link. 

Thanks for the link Duane, I'll study it, compare it with other data that geologists here have given me and we'll debate further.

However, I caution you.  You've taken ONE core drilling, and drawn SIGNIFICANT conclusions with it.  (Have you tested your ideas against rock cores taken from the Appalachians, Rockies, or Himalaya's?)....

I could make a similar statement from ONE single observation:

I state that all female crossing guards are MUCH friendlier than any male crossing guard in the entire earth.  How do I know this?  The female crossing guard I always pass of a morning always waves and smiles.  The male crossing guard just glares at me.  Think about it Duane.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by OneLargeToe
And THAT will always be your only final counter arguement.  "Hey, if you weren't there then you have NO idea what happened!  It's all crazy conjecture!"

I wasnt' there when the Cherokee Nation was marched from Red Clay to Oklahoma on the orders of Andrew Jackson...therefore...it NEVER really happened....

I wasn't there to witness the genocide of the Jews by Hitler's army...so it NEVER REALLY happened.....

I wasn't there when that moron Columbus landed in Central America and thought he was in India..so he NEVERRRR really sailed across the Atlantic.

I've never been to Iraq....soooo therefore it can't exist...

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by npetreley
That's the reason why creationists say the overthrust explanation for out-of-order fossils is wrong. There are no indications of friction and stress where there should be. But if the layers were deposited quickly by a catastrophe, there would be no friction or indications of stress, because the layers weren't placed by horizontal movement (overthrust).

Regardless, all the models have apparent problems. The biggest problems for old-earthers is that nobody was there to testify about what happened. Creationists have a written history of what happened, but it lacks details about how.

We were talking about MOUNTAIN RANGE FORMATION nick....MOUNTAIN RANGES...you're DIGRESSING to distract.  YEC's who claim a global flood formed the major mountain ranges of the world in a very short period of time..need to TAKE UP MOUNTAIN HIKING...

 

[Morat]

TheBear: According to Joe Meert, a physical pole shift as Duane discusses isn't theoretically impossible. However, the only possible time-frame for such an event was ruled out a few years ago. (Of course, geologists postulated a much slower event than Duane).

   Duane brought up pole shifts in another thread, and Joe happened to see it and post.

   As for Nick and overthrusts, he's wrong as usual. You'd think after being spanked so many times, he'd start checking his sources. There are several excellent pictures on that link, showing intense deformation of rocks by the thrust.

 

 

 

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by Duane Morse
You may not be a scientist, nor am I.
But we are not stupid either. Nor unintelligent. The basic principles are not all that hard to understand. It is more a matter of looking at things objectively and trying to fit the pieces together.
The objectivity of either secular scientists or creation scientists always seem to me to stop at a certain point.
I, on the other hand, just want to know the Truth, whatever Truth is.

Duane,

You keep referring to friction to support your ideas...can you explain friction and show it mathematically?  One must be able to show this ability to argue it.

You refered to continents colliding and their effects...can you explain the laws of motion & momentum? You also must demonstrate the mathematical proofs to theorize on the effects of land masses colliding.

If you want truth...study.  Imagination works only for poetry, music, theatre, and the other arts.  NOT science.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Smilin
I wasnt' there when the Cherokee Nation was marched from Red Clay to Oklahoma on the orders of Andrew Jackson...therefore...it NEVER really happened....

I wasn't there to witness the genocide of the Jews by Hitler's army...so it NEVER REALLY happened.....

I wasn't there when that moron Columbus landed in Central America and thought he was in India..so he NEVERRRR really sailed across the Atlantic.

I've never been to Iraq....soooo therefore it can't exist...

Wow. Those are some neat straw men. What's funny about them, however, is that you attacked the wrong logic. This was a discussion about how things formed, not about whether they exist. According to your straw men, the mountains don't exist because nobody was there to see them form.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by Morat
TheBear: According to Joe Meert, a physical pole shift as Duane discusses isn't theoretically impossible. However, the only possible time-frame for such an event was ruled out a few years ago. (Of course, geologists postulated a much slower event than Duane).

   Duane brought up pole shifts in another thread, and Joe happened to see it and post.

   As for Nick and overthrusts, he's wrong as usual. You'd think after being spanked so many times, he'd start checking his sources. There are several excellent pictures on that link, showing intense deformation of rocks by the thrust.   

 

Nick...I'll GLADLY e-mail you pictures from the Cumberland Mountains here showing intense deformation of rocks due to thrust. 

I keep seeing pole shifts...are we referring to magnetic pole shifts..or a supposed inversion of the earth by 180 degrees?

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by npetreley
Wow. Those are some neat straw men. What's funny about them, however, is that you attacked the wrong logic. This was a discussion about how things formed, not about whether they exist. According to your straw men, the mountains don't exist because nobody was there to see them form.

No nick...not strawmen...it was SATIRE (look it up)...to demonstrate YOUR logical process on the topic...

You keep stating...You weren't there...so how do you know?

I just expounded on YOUR logic

I just gave more examples of things that happened that neither you nor myself were there to witness..but history and science SHOWS they happened.

 

[npetreley]

Oh, by the way, people are alive who were there to see Hitler's genocide. People have been to Iraq who are alive to talk about it. And people were there to see historic events that occurred long enough ago that no living person can testify to them first hand. The eyewitnesses wrote about these events. You know about these events because you read about them and trust from what you read that they did happen, and probably happened something close to how the historical documents describe.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by npetreley
Oh, by the way, people are alive who were there to see Hitler's genocide. People have been to Iraq who are alive to talk about it. And people were there to see historic events that occurred long enough ago that no living person can testify to them first hand. The eyewitnesses wrote about these events. You know about these events because you read about them and trust from what you read that they did happen, and probably happened something close to how the historical documents describe.

So basically, unless it was written down by someone it can't be trusted.

There's irony in there, somewhere.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Smilin
You keep stating...You weren't there...so how do you know?

Exactly. But what I'm saying is how do you know HOW the mountains formed? To take your example of pole shifts -- I assume you mean that, since the pole shifts occurred thousands or millions of years apart, the mountains must have recorded these events as they formed, etc. But that's a tautology. If the mountains formed quickly due to a catastrophe that also caused rapid pole shifts, then you'd get the same apparent result. The only difference between the two interpretations is the set of assumptions behind them.

I fully acknowledge that both theories are based on unverifiable assumptions. What I pointed out to you, however, is that only one theory is based on events recorded by eyewitnesses. You choose not to believe in that testimony in spite of the fact that you take other historical documents for granted without proof. Fine. I have no problem with that. But thems the facts -- one theory is based only on interpretation and imagination, the other is based on interpretation, imagination, and the testimony of eyewitnesses.

 

[Smilin]

Nick,

1. I don't claim to know how the mountains formed, yet I study the science and either agree or disagree with the theories. Geologists also create models that demonstrate the mountain formations. Wanna link to one? just ask...IF you seek knowledge. These dynamic models make sense to me Nick (as well as to most geologists). Show me your working model of a global wide flood creating the mountain ranges. If it works dynamically...I'll accept it as a possibility.

2. I made no claim to a pole shift. Re-read what I said. Just as there is no evidence (yet found) of a GLOBAL wide flood...there is no evidence that I know of supporting a 180 degree inversion of the earth. We could model that one too and observe the results. My hypothesis is that the earth would be utterly destroyed from such an inversion.

3. The eyewitnesses of your theory...who were they?