Continental Seperation Mechanism

[dlamberth]

I need not falsify the tooth fairy, or your claims, since they are unfalsifiable!

You sure haven't falsified anything nor have you proved anything. Until you do, what we have in science is the best answer we have out there.

.

 

[Nathan Poe]

No, I wasn't here then.

I was using "you" in the collective sense. Since fundamentalist Christian thought is that all of God's creation was made solely for their benefit, then your notion is that the universe litterally revolved around them?

And don't be silly, dad. Of course you were here last Thursday.

 

[Mallon]

What's at issue here is that YOU have not falsified the scientific present explanation nor have you proved your own explanation. Until that happens the present scientific explanation has not been falsified thus it still stands.

You hit the nail on the head, dlamberth. If dad wishes to put forth his catastrophic hypothesis of plate tectonics and have it considered seriously, then the onus is on him to present the data in a way that fits in with what we already know about the geology of the world. In the meantime, the gradual process of plate tectonics will continue to be taught in classrooms across the world, despite his insistance that it is not true. It is not up to us to prove him wrong; it is up to him to prove himself correct. And no amount of complaining will change that.

 

[LaLaRu]

I don't think that is in any way the case. The only way it could falsify it is if you could show the past was as the present, being a physical only world. If that were possible, you would have a pretty rock solid case. Fortunately, that is anything but the case, which means your whole case sits on a dream.
It simply points out, that the present conditions could not have applied in the past.
This is what I think must have been the case. The physical only laws, the laws of physics as we call them did not apply. Like the future will be, the matter in the past must have been both the spiritual and the physical.

Translation: I'm an Young Earth Creationist, but these pesky laws of physics are ripping my tissue-thin arguments to shreds. I know! I'll just randomly claim that the laws of physics don't apply to my theory. Mwahahahahah!!!!

 

[dad]

Translation: I'm an Young Earth Creationist, but these pesky laws of physics are ripping my tissue-thin arguments to shreds. I know! I'll just randomly claim that the laws of physics don't apply to my theory. Mwahahahahah!!!!

The laws of physics are great. We need them. The day you can show they applied at creation or will in the new heavens is the day they will be any kind of problem whatsoever. That day will never come. If Christ didn't rise from the dead, then we Christians are of all men the most miserable. He did. The laws of Physics are our little pet, to keep wicked men in line, and not living too long to destroy and corrupt the earth completely before the time. They won't stop us living forever! They won't stop heaven coming, and the new heavens. They didn't stop the universe from being created, or the flood! They just form the limits of your fishbowl.
My feeling for a fish in there claiming there is nothing outside that bowl are not fear and terror, and awe, and looking up at it's wisdom! I merely shake my head, with a knowing smile, that they have no proof whatsoever for their claims.

If all you claim is science, and present based laws of physics, in that bowl you are.

 

[dad]

You hit the nail on the head, dlamberth. If dad wishes to put forth his catastrophic hypothesis of plate tectonics and have it considered seriously, then the onus is on him to present the data in a way that fits in with what we already know about the geology of the world.

It does, from the simple fact of seperation, to the fossils we find on different continents, to the present residual little crawl of a movement.

The only real issue is the state of the world at the time, which you claim and assume to be the present state, but can't back that up.

 

[dad]

I was using "you" in the collective sense. Since fundamentalist Christian thought is that all of God's creation was made solely for their benefit, then your notion is that the universe litterally revolved around them?

Why, do you think that God is making a mistake moving here forever? Of course the world is the center of the universe. The rest of the universe was made after the earth for our benefit!
God rests the fate of nations on their reaction to and treatment of His people! If you taught history right you would know this. The temple was thrown down In old Israel, not one stone left standing on another, because of how they treated Him. The nation was scattered, and broken for the same reason. All history is similar, the writing is on the wall.

How earth rotated, or not before the PO heavens we don't know, any more than how it will in the new heavens. But we are the center stage.

 

[dad]

You sure haven't falsified anything nor have you proved anything. Until you do, what we have in science is the best answer we have out there.

.

How would you suggest one falsify your claim that the past and future will be physical only? If you want to claim the best answer is yours, then give one. Face it your old ageism is unfalsifiable, unobservable, untestable, and unrepeatable, as well as unbiblical.

 

[LaLaRu]

The day you can show they applied at creation or will in the new heavens is the day they will be any kind of problem whatsoever

So, unless you show they apply on a particular instance, they don't?

Lawyer: "So, ballistic analysis reveals that the bullet came from YOUR window, what do you say to that?"
Defendant: "Your analysis is based upon the laws of physics. Prove that they didn't change thar day!!"

No dice. YOU have the burden of proof on that one.

If Christ didn't rise from the dead, then we Christians are of all men the most miserable. He did.

Prove, prove, prove your crackpot theories.

They won't stop us living forever! They won't stop heaven coming, and the new heavens. They didn't stop the universe from being created, or the flood! They just form the limits of your fishbowl.

So in other words, you've decided to totally ditch logic and reason, and state that they only apply when you want them to apply.

My feeling for a fish in there claiming there is nothing outside that bowl are not fear and terror, and awe, and looking up at it's wisdom! I merely shake my head, with a knowing smile, that they have no proof whatsoever for their claims.

I don't beleive in God for the same reason you don't beleive in Ganesha.

 

[Mallon]

It does, from the simple fact of seperation, to the fossils we find on different continents, to the present residual little crawl of a movement.

These lines of evidence support a gradual continental drift. In fact, these were some of the evidences put forth in support of the original theory. You cannot claim these evidences in support of your own hypothesis without garnering additional information as to the "catastrophic" nature of continental drift -- none of which you have presented yet (you love to accuse others of holding back the evidence, yet you never present any yourself).

The only real issue is the state of the world at the time, which you claim and assume to be the present state, but can't back that up.

Actually, I think if you ever took the time to attend school or maybe even read a book, you would find that there is much evidential support for gradualism/actualism. Any high-school geology text will tell you (and show you) that much.
So again, given that actualism is the accepted framework, the onus is on you to show us why it is false; science has already shown time and again why it works. Whether or not it works to your specific liking, or to the liking of a handfull of creationists, is irrelevant. Science continues to progress, it continues to be taught in classrooms, and you are left in the dust, having contributed nothing to our understanding of the world.

 

[JohnR7]

Well John, we can measure the movement both of mountains being built where plates collide and the distance between plates where they are separating.

Not much theory left. The plates are moving, colliding, and building mountains.

This is a fact.

The theory is that at one time all the land mass was in one place. That is the difference between so called "fact" and theory. The movement your talking about takes place under the water as well as on the surface. It would tend to falsify the theory of one single land mass.

 

[notto]

The theory is that at one time all the land mass was in one place. That is the difference between so called "fact" and theory. The movement your talking about takes place under the water as well as on the surface. It would tend to falsify the theory of one single land mass.

How specifically does it falsify the theory of one single land mass? Please be specific and discuss the mechanisms involved and what research or sources you base your conclusion on. Claiming falsification would require such a thing. You throw that word around alot but it seems that seldom do you use it properly. Perhaps this time you can show us specifically what you mean.

Plate techtonics as a mechanism is not dependent on a single land mass ever being real. It is based on observed mechanisms. A single land mass is a conclusion based on these observed mechanisms involved with plate techtonics.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Why, do you think that God is making a mistake moving here forever?

I think God is doing no such thing. Atheist, remember?

Of course the world is the center of the universe. The rest of the universe was made after the earth for our benefit!

One rarely sees such egotism codified into holy writ.

God rests the fate of nations on their reaction to and treatment of His people! If you taught history right you would know this.

I teach mythology, so I already know this.

The temple was thrown down In old Israel, not one stone left standing on another, because of how they treated Him. The nation was scattered, and broken for the same reason. All history is similar, the writing is on the wall.

I also teach logic. Would you like a free lesson in a false cause fallacy?

How earth rotated, or not before the PO heavens we don't know, any more than how it will in the new heavens. But we are the center stage.

And have been since last Thursday.

 

[dlamberth]

How would you suggest one falsify your claim that the past and future will be physical only?

You have taken your argument even further than a physical only world, you also make incredible claims of a completely different world than it is today, physically speaking. As such, you better get busy trying to figure out some good science to prove your point and dis-prove the present scientific explanation.

.

 

[JohnR7]

How specifically does it falsify the theory of one single land mass?

The theory is that the plates are crashing into each other, not drifting apart.

This theory of plate tectonics replaced the previous one of continental drift http://hypertextbook.com/facts/ZhenHuang.shtml

 

[Baggins]

The theory is that the plates are crashing into each other, not drifting apart.

Wrong.

plates move apart and collide.

What do the words; sea floor spreading, subduction zones, mountain building, and faulting mean to you?

Nothing I'd imagine.

How can you make statements like that so confidently when you obviously don't have the education to back them up? Even someone with school age qualifications in geology would have been able to pull you up on that statement.

 

[JohnR7]

plates move apart and collide.

Ok, fine present your evidence for your
Pangaea theory and perhaps you can give us some evidence for Atlantas while your at it.

 

[dlamberth]

The theory is that the plates are crashing into each other, not drifting apart.

That plates on the service of the earth both crash into each other and ALSO drift apart is no longer a theory. It's a fact we watch daily. We need go no further than look at the path that the Yellowstone Hotspot for proof. What's still theory at this point is the mechanism that moves the plates around the earth.

.

 

[dlamberth]

Ok, fine present your evidence for your
Pangaea theory and perhaps you can give us some evidence for Atlantas while your at it.

There is so much evidence for a supercontentent we call Pangaea that I'm wondering what evidence you have that it didn't take place.

The movements of the plates since the breakup of Pangaea is well understood. Following their paths back 200 million years is one way Pangaea can be re-created.

.

 

[dad]

So, unless you show they apply on a particular instance, they don't?

When the instance is the entire far past and future, and you BASE a mountain of old age theories on it, of course it needs to be demonstrably true.

Lawyer: "So, ballistic analysis reveals that the bullet came from YOUR window, what do you say to that?"
Defendant: "Your analysis is based upon the laws of physics. Prove that they didn't change thar day!!"

No, it is more like claiming that The sun and stars, and earth, and men will get shot one day far in the future with that weapon, just because it is used today. No one questions how it fires in the present, or recent past.

No dice. YOU have the burden of proof on that one.
Prove, prove, prove your crackpot theories.

Calling the bible crackpot, then stuffing your own crackpot unfoundable ideas in it's place is an excercise in hypocracy. You are guilty of the very crime you accuse the bible of, that is, not having physical proofs of it's claims regarding the future, or far past! You do the same, yet have the unmitigated gall to claim it as part of actual science?

So in other words, you've decided to totally ditch logic and reason, and state that they only apply when you want them to apply.
I don't beleive in God for the same reason you don't beleive in Ganesha.

Doesn't matter, what matters is that you back up your claims of science! Regardless of what you believe went on. This you fail to do here. This is getting ridiculous, it is sounding like old age apologetics! 'Gee, I'm sorry, I really want to keep claiming the future and past were PO, cause all my old ageism beliefs depend on it, but I shouldn't have to evidence my so called science, cause you, big bad bible believer, can't provide the evidence your claims are science eithr, wah wah wah.'

Only your claim is supposed to be science. You claim the past and future are in the fishbowl. Don't whine and run when someone demands you back up your bogus science claims!