Creationist Challenge: Plate Tectonics

Frumious Bandersnatch · Apr 27, 2006

There is a huge problem with moving the plates fast and that is heat. To move the plates ocean floor is subducted at subduction zones and new seafloor and lithosphere is created at spreading zones. Baumgardner et al have used this as supposed mechanism to drive the flood. Whether the rapid movement occurs during the flood or during a later "time of Peleg" enough heat is generated to cook the earth to death. I addressed the heat problem in detail on this thread which I just bumped.

MrGoodBytes · Apr 27, 2006

Mocca said:
Ooh, that's definately a benefit. I'm sad that TheInstant claimed it before me. What's second place?

Half life.

Maynard Keenan · Apr 27, 2006

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
There is a huge problem with moving the plates fast and that is heat. To move the plates ocean floor is subducted at subduction zones and new seafloor and lithosphere is created at spreading zones. Baumgardner et al have used this as supposed mechanism to drive the flood. Whether the rapid movement occurs during the flood or during a later "time of Peleg" enough heat is generated to cook the earth to death. I addressed the heat problem in detail on this thread which I just bumped.

GODDIDIT!!!!

Seriously creationism takes what it "knows," then what science has proven, and plugs in crackpot ideas because its the only way to reconcile the two. Hmm pangea existed, but since the earth is 6000 years old that means the continents move REALLY FAST (not to mention the destructiveness of the earthquakes this would generate).

Hydra009 · Apr 27, 2006

dad said:
Wrong. They begin with hard evidence, accepted by science. Look, we know that the continents moved apart, I kid you not. Give science some credit. A lot of work has been done to determine that.

Yeah, no kidding. But the question was whether or not you have evidence supporting your claim that the continents moved apart faster than predicted by plate tectonics and observed today.

Frumious Bandersnatch · Apr 27, 2006

Maynard Keenan said:
GODDIDIT!!!!

Seriously creationism takes what it "knows," then what science has proven, and plugs in crackpot ideas because its the only way to reconcile the two. Hmm pangea existed, but since the earth is 6000 years old that means the continents move REALLY FAST (not to mention the destructiveness of the earthquakes this would generate).

Yes, there would have been a whole lota shaking going on. With a few hundred million years of earthquakes compressed into a few years or even a few centuries I doubt if anything could have been built that would have stood for long.

There are at least three other problems with rapid plate movement. The thickness, age and distribution of sea flood sediments is consistent with plate movements at current rates and a sea floor that is more than 200 million years old and not with runaway subduction. (Added in edit: The seafloor is more than 200 million years old at the oldest part of course, much of the seafloor is younger depending on how far it is from the spreading center)

The depth profile of the ocean floor is consistent with spreading at current rates and not runaway subduction.

The crystal structure of ocean floor rocks is mostly consistent with conductive cooling over long periods of time rather that the shock cooling that is require to get the heat out of runaway model even in 6000 years. (I have only literature references on that one and not a web site to link).

There is absolutely no scientific support for galloping continents either during or after the time of the alleged flood and a lot of data that falsify the claim.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

Nightson · Apr 27, 2006

dad said:
How would you know?

Were you not online awhile back during the updates when people's isps showed up in their profiles temporarily?

Gracchus · Apr 27, 2006

dad said:
No. Mine is not the myth. Mine is absolute, unquestionable, indisputible fact.

Well, I believe that you can't question it. But that is your limitation, and not generally shared. You can make up all sorts of nonsense, and believe it, but some of us can separate fiction from reality.

dad said:
Your attempts to question it are the genuine, real, actual myth.

You don't seem to have a very good grasp of language, dad.

myth (m th)n.1. a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.
b. Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth.

2. A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia.
3. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.
4. A fictitious story, person, or thing: "German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth" Leon Wolff.

A question is not a myth.

dad · Apr 27, 2006

Hydra009 said:
Yeah, no kidding. But the question was whether or not you have evidence supporting your claim that the continents moved apart faster than predicted by plate tectonics and observed today.

Ha. You almost insinuate you have some evidence they ALWAYS MOVED AT THE SAME RATE! No, you don't. Whether the present view of the past based dating attempts yield similar ages matters not. Any more than young ages also agree with the evidences in the different past light.
How do you know how fast they moved 4400 years ago?

dad · Apr 27, 2006

Nightson said:
Were you not online awhile back during the updates when people's isps showed up in their profiles temporarily?

No. Goodness, better change proxies more often.

dad · Apr 27, 2006

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
There is a huge problem with moving the plates fast and that is heat. To move the plates ocean floor is subducted at subduction zones and new seafloor and lithosphere is created at spreading zones. Baumgardner et al have used this as supposed mechanism to drive the flood. Whether the rapid movement occurs during the flood or during a later "time of Peleg" enough heat is generated to cook the earth to death. I addressed the heat problem in detail on this thread which I just bumped.

ONLY in the present. You assume the past was the same. There lies your fatal error.

dad · Apr 27, 2006

Gracchus said:
Gracchus said:

Well, I believe that you can't question it. But that is your limitation, and not generally shared. You can make up all sorts of nonsense, and believe it, but some of us can separate fiction from reality.

Click to expand...

Only by assumption when it comes to the past and future though. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Frumious Bandersnatch · Apr 28, 2006

So we see that young earth creationists are entirely unable to answer the challenge of plate tectonics. The heat released by the cooling of the crust and lithosphere would have cooked the earth to death, the pattern of sediments on the sea floor is consistent with deposition over millions of years and not with super rapid movement, the depth profile of the oceans is consistent with slow movement and not fast and the crystal structure of sea floor rocks such as gabbros is consistent with slow spreading and conductive cooling. and is not consistent with rapid cooling that would be required to solidfy the crust during rapid plate movement.

There has been no answer the these challenges from YECs other than bizarre and totally unfounded speculations about a recent past with wildly different laws of physics that don't actually explain anything, have zero evidence in their favor and are totally irrelevant to any scientific discussion. Such fantasies are so far from the realm of reality as to be undeserving of further comment.

dad · Apr 28, 2006

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
So we see that young earth creationists are entirely unable to answer the challenge of plate tectonics. The heat released by the cooling of the crust and lithosphere would have cooked the earth to death, the pattern of sediments on the sea floor is consistent with deposition over millions of years and not with super rapid movement, the depth profile of the oceans is consistent with slow movement and not fast and the crystal structure of sea floor rocks such as gabbros is consistent with slow spreading and conductive cooling. and is not consistent with rapid cooling that would be required to solidfy the crust during rapid plate movement.

There has been no answer the these challenges from YECs other than bizarre and totally unfounded speculations about a recent past with wildly different laws of physics that don't actually explain anything, have zero evidence in their favor and are totally irrelevant to any scientific discussion. Such fantasies are so far from the realm of reality as to be undeserving of further comment.

Nonsense. The depth of water is perfectly consistant with what would be expected in a rapid movement. Also, the different past matter cooling cannot be compared to present physical world matter cooling rates. Fantasies, I am afraid.

Frumious Bandersnatch · Apr 29, 2006

One of the triumps of plate tectonics has been to successfully predict the depths profiles of the oceans based on conductive cooling and sinking of the lithosphere. A detailed mathematical treatment can be found HERE. As the lithosphere cools it sinks making the oceans deeper.The relationship between age and depth is approximately depth = 2500 M + 350xSquare Root(Age in Millions of years). YEC can not come up with any similar predictive model based on convective cooling which would be required for rapid plate movement as geophysicist Joe Meert has pointed out in the page I already referenced here.

The conductive cooling predicted by modern geology also matches the age distribution on either side of the ridge. The predicted age of a piece of ocean floor based on conductive cooling is a near perfect match for the radiometric and magnetostratigraphic age11 of the ocean floor. These observations are not consistent with the hypothetical profile shown in Figure 4. For example, radiometric ages in the convective region would be nearly identical and would show greatest change in the conductive region. This is contrary to what we observe. In short, the observed bathymetry is a near perfect match for an old earth model and seriously challenges the model proposed by Baumgardner and other advocates of rapid drift.

Galloping continents would have led to a very different ocean floor profile.

Of course sediment profiles and crystal structure of crustal rocks refute rapid plate movement and the heat released is a literally fatal flaw as I pointed out before.

Plate tectonics provides another solid refutation of YEC and the attempts of "flood geologists" to incorporate in their young earth models have all been total failures.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

dad · Apr 29, 2006

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
Frumious Bandersnatch said:

One of the triumps of plate tectonics has been to successfully predict the depths profiles of the oceans based on conductive cooling and sinking of the lithosphere. A detailed mathematical treatment can be found HERE. As the lithosphere cools it sinks making the oceans deeper.The relationship between age and depth is approximately depth = 2500 M + 350xSquare Root(Age in Millions of years). YEC can not come up with any similar predictive model based on convective cooling which would be required for rapid plate movement ...

Click to expand...

The cooling rates of matter, in the past were different. Pretty simple.

Galloping continents would have led to a very different ocean floor profile.

Click to expand...

If, and only if they gallopped in a past that was just like the present, and science have nothing to say about that.

Of course sediment profiles and crystal structure of crustal rocks refute rapid plate movement and the heat released is a literally fatal flaw as I pointed out before.

Click to expand...

No, no, the fatal flaw is assuming the past and future are as this temporary physical only present state of being.

Plate tectonics provides another solid refutation of YEC and the attempts of "flood geologists" to incorporate in their young earth models have all been total failures.

Click to expand...

Flood geology is a failure. It had the same fatal flaw you had, in the starting assumptions.

Frumious Bandersnatch · Apr 29, 2006

Dad's bizarre ravings are not worth responding to. Does any YEC have anything scientific about the problem that plate tectonics presents for the Young Earth Model?

Waiting for the Verdict · Apr 29, 2006

Maynard Keenan said:
GODDIDIT!!!!

Seriously creationism takes what it "knows," then what science has proven, and plugs in crackpot ideas because its the only way to reconcile the two. Hmm pangea existed, but since the earth is 6000 years old that means the continents move REALLY FAST (not to mention the destructiveness of the earthquakes this would generate).

I am "pro-evolution" (well as pro as you can be with any scientific fact), but if they are Old Earth Creationists, I don't see how pangea is going to be much of a problem.

Too bad OEC is unbelievable in other ways.

Frumious Bandersnatch · Apr 29, 2006

Waiting for the Verdict said:
I am "pro-evolution" (well as pro as you can be with any scientific fact), but if they are Old Earth Creationists, I don't see how pangea is going to be much of a problem.

Too bad OEC is unbelievable in other ways.

I agree. I always try to specify YEC or Young Earth Creationism, when discussing the multiple falsifications of the Young Earth and global flood. There are some OEC sites that attack YEC quite strongly such as Answers in Creation and Accuracy in Genesis. The people at Answer in Genesis seem to me to be as eager to attack Hugh Ross of the OEC organization Reason to Believe as they are "evolutionists".

The Frumious Bandersnatch

Split Rock · Apr 29, 2006

dad said:
The cooling rates of matter, in the past were different. Pretty simple.

If, and only if they gallopped in a past that was just like the present, and science have nothing to say about that.

No, no, the fatal flaw is assuming the past and future are as this temporary physical only present state of being.

Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, can you explain why the geological processes of the Pre-Spit world based on different laws of nature fit so well with modern geology based on non-changed laws of nature and an older planet?

yashua · Apr 29, 2006

Flood geology is a failure. It had the same fatal flaw you had, in the starting assumptions.

Has anyone ever read the Hab Theory??

It is a very interesting theory to say the least, and would line up very well with creationist thinking the earth is 6000 years old.

Heres one that they like to use to prove their point.

The ocean floor in order to be millions of years old would have a layer at the bottom that would be quite thick in sediment materials, but according to the Hab theory the earth goes through axis changes due to the Ice building up to cause the earth to shift in its rotation every so many thosands of years causing massive flooding, and plate changes all over the earth with new lands being formed and old ones being destroyed or covered with water which would fit nicley into the reason why the ocean floor has so little sediment on the bottom, and it would also explain why their were salt deposits found inside of the Pyramids of Egypt, and sea shells surrounding the edges of the giant structures. It would also explain why the ocean floor seems to have cities beneath it. it would also explain why fish fossils and sea shells have been found on top of mountain tops?

Creationist Challenge: Plate Tectonics

Contributor

Seeker for life, probably

Well-Known Member

bel esprit

Contributor

Take two snuggles and call me in the morning

Senior Veteran

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Contributor

Undefeated!

Contributor

Undefeated!

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Conflation of Blathers

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency