Creationist Challenge: Plate Tectonics

[Split Rock]

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?

The ocean floor is being turned over by tectonic activity.
Plate tectonics also explains why there are sea-shells and other fossils not on mountains, but in them. Who says the ocean floor has cities beneath it??

 

[Baggins]

why the ocean floor has so little sediment on the bottom,

It has the amount that geologists expect it to have.

. It would also explain why the ocean floor seems to have cities beneath it.

In 17 years of conducting and interpreting seismic surveys I have never seen any evidence of this, care to cite some sources?

it would also explain why fish fossils and sea shells have been found on top of mountain tops?

Plate tectonics, what this thread is about does this quite adequately, I suggest you read up on it

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Has anyone ever read the Hab Theory??

Not me. But I did find a reference to it on Crank.net. I think may actually be an attempt to create additional sales for a science fiction novel.

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,

As I pointed out earlier the accumlation of sediments on the ocean floor fits quite well with plate tectonics and an ocean floor with a maxium age of about 200 million yearss (It is younger in most places).

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,

If that were true but it isn't. Still the idea that enough ice could build up at the poles to significantly change the earths rotation seems highly unlikely to me. Further there is paleontological evidence against this IIRC and how many times did this supposedly happen in the last 6,000 years?

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?

Huh? BTW Leonardo Di Vinci was the first to correctly reason that marine fossils in (not on) rocks in mountains were not evidence of a global flood so this one is more than a bit out of date.

All of the other problems with rapid plate movement still hold as well so I would say that Hab "theory" is not a theory but a pre-falsified hypothesis.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

On further review it turns out that Hab theory is indeed based on a scienfic fiction novel. I suppose that puts it ahead of flood geology which is based on pseudo-science fantasy.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[yashua]

It has the amount that geologists expect it to have.



In 17 years of conducting and interpreting seismic surveys I have never seen any evidence of this, care to cite some sources?



Plate tectonics, what this thread is about does this quite adequately, I suggest you read up on it

I am sorry I should have been more specific.
Cities that have been flooded. There is evidence of formations in the oceans that seem to have been crafted wouldn't you say? that are thousands of years old.

 

[Gracchus]

I am sorry I should have been more specific.
Cities that have been flooded. There is evidence of formations in the oceans that seem to have been crafted wouldn't you say? that are thousands of years old.

There are indeed former human habitations found on the continental shelves. In fact Venice and New Orleans may soon (in the next few centuries) join them. None, I think, have been found on the abyssal plains. But perhaps you can cite some?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I am sorry I should have been more specific.
Cities that have been flooded. There is evidence of formations in the oceans that seem to have been crafted wouldn't you say? that are thousands of years old.

As Gracchus has pointed out submerged cities are not that uncommon. Here is a desription of two ancient Greek cities that have become submerged off the Nile Delta.

The idea that polar ice could flip the rotation of the earth does not really seem sensible to me. Large ice sheets may increase polar wobble slightly. Numbers I have seen indicate a few to up to 100 km movement of the pole at most. I calculate that the spin angular momentum of the earth is about 7 x 10^34 Kg-m2/sec. This is a tremdenous stabilizing factor. Here is a page on changing a planets rotation from within.

We can start out by ruling out what won't happen.

• The axis won't stay in its original location and orientation because the center of mass of the system has moved.
• The axis won't change its position radically because the angular momentum vector must still point in the same direction, and it can only do that if the asteroid and the Prince are rotating around an axis somewhere not far from the original axis (Note 2).
• The axis won't shift to the Prince's new location. He only has 1/1000 of the mass of the asteroid, after all.
• The axis won't shift to a new permanent location toward or away from the Prince.
  • If it shifted toward him, he'd still be off-axis, which means he'd cause a further axis shift, and so on, ultimately moving the axis to his location.
  • If it shifted away from him, he'd be even further off-axis than before, meaning he'd cause an even bigger shift, and so on until he was on the planet's equator.

Now what part of Science Fiction Novel don't you understand?

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[AngryNotice]

Assume the world is 30, 000 years old. On average tectonic plates move 4 inches per year. This means that since the beginning of time the plates have shifted around 10, 000 feet, a little less then two miles. Obviously, this poses a problem for the idea of a Pangea.

Challenge: Explain

1. Coal deposits in Antarctica showing fossils of tropical plants. Tectonics explains this since that land was at one point nearer to the equator at a latitude that allowed for such growth. Growth of these plants at the latitude of Antarctica is nearly impossible.

2. Continental ice sheets- glacial striations on rocks show that glaciers moved from south America towards the Atlantic ocean and from the Atlantic ocean towards Africa. Since it is highly unlikely that glaciers swim, how is this gap explainable if the continents were not joined at some point?

3. Identical fossil species along the South American and African shores, both on the Atlantic side. Fossils from these species are not found in north America, Asia, or the western side of Africa.

plate techtonics doesnt exist. its a myth created by the evolutionist theory to help put their fantasy ideas together. evolution is a package deal, you accept it then you have to accept an old earth, that we are animals and that the continents move. rediculous

but ill try to answer your points

1. coal deposites maybe they *gasp* dont exist??? why is it these things are believed before being seen first hand. the existance of coal deposites is an idea set up to push an idea that SANTA is here to help children and not bring them to hell. but naturally its overlooked

2. glaciers are big ice cubes basically. if you put ice inside a glass of water they move around to different parts. why couldnt the same be true for glaciers????

3. fossils can be evolutionist fakes. this has been shown in the past and i see no reasonw hy we should believe anything they "find" now

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Troll Alert!

 

[Adriac]

plate techtonics doesnt exist. its a myth created by the evolutionist theory to help put their fantasy ideas together. evolution is a package deal, you accept it then you have to accept an old earth, that we are animals and that the continents move. rediculous

but ill try to answer your points

1. coal deposites maybe they *gasp* dont exist??? why is it these things are believed before being seen first hand. the existance of coal deposites is an idea set up to push an idea that SANTA is here to help children and not bring them to hell. but naturally its overlooked

2. glaciers are big ice cubes basically. if you put ice inside a glass of water they move around to different parts. why couldnt the same be true for glaciers????

3. fossils can be evolutionist fakes. this has been shown in the past and i see no reasonw hy we should believe anything they "find" now

Poe?

 

[Baggins]

Poe?

Yes

He's jumped the shark with that post though.

Before there was just that scintilla of doubt, perhaps someone could be that dim and still manage to use a computer.

But the above post has just pushed the parody too far.

Come in number 99 your time is up. You were a good parody while you lasted, but you have to keep that smidgim of doubt in our minds and with the above post you lost us.

Kudos though

 

[Micaiah]

From the OP, it appears it was assumed that the entire ocean bed was included in the heating calculation. Is this a realistic assumption?

 

[AngryNotice]

its easier to call me not real than to address the points i make. thanks for prooving my point

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

From the OP, it appears it was assumed that the entire ocean bed was included in the heating calculation. Is this a realistic assumption?

Yes. Baumgardner specifically states this in his CPT model for the flood. The oldest ocean crust and lithosphere is generally said to be about 220 million years old though there may be some exceptions in very limited places. IIRC Joe Meert mentioned some of these here once.

The point is that at least the vast majority of of the ocean floor and lithosphere must be recycled between the break-up of Pangea and the current configuration of the continents (There was also a supercontinent before Pangea but that's another story) The heat produced is many times more than the atmosphere and oceans can absorb while maintaining conditions that life could tolerate so even if not quite all the ocean floor was included the heat is still way too much.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

its easier to call me not real than to address the points i make. thanks for prooving my point

The points that you made are not points at all. Plate movements can be measured. The evidence for plate tectonics is overwhelming. Coal deposits provide another falsification of the flood myth but are not really that relevant to this discussion and a tiny number of "faked" fossils out of the millions collected in museums are also not relevant to this discussion.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Micaiah]

I don't believe that any YEC model of plate tectonics that kills off all the fish is consistent with God's revealled truth.

Don't really know enough about this to comment much further.

 

[Baggins]

its easier to call me not real than to address the points i make. thanks for prooving my point

Anyone who doesn't "believe" in coal, is either a poor parody or so far out of earth orbit that they are probably not worth debating with.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Anyone who doesn't "believe" in coal, is either a poor parody or so far out of earth orbit that they are probably not worth debating with.

I am not sure what the point was with coal deposits. The nonsense about glaicer moving around like ice cubes in a glass was pretty bizarre as well.

F.B.

 

[Elduran]

I am not sure what the point was with coal deposits. The nonsense about glaicer moving around like ice cubes in a glass was pretty bizarre as well.

F.B.

Par for the course with this one though...

 

[dawiyd]

plate techtonics doesnt exist. its a myth created by the evolutionist theory to help put their fantasy ideas together. evolution is a package deal, you accept it then you have to accept an old earth, that we are animals and that the continents move. rediculous

Myth: "a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people"

Could you please provide some credible sources that actually prove plate tectonics don't exist.

1. coal deposites maybe they *gasp* dont exist??? why is it these things are believed before being seen first hand. the existance of coal deposites is an idea set up to push an idea that SANTA is here to help children and not bring them to hell. but naturally its overlooked

What the hell, you have to be kidding right? My father was a coal miner and luckily I have have the privilidge of going down a coal mine to see coal seams.

2. glaciers are big ice cubes basically. if you put ice inside a glass of water they move around to different parts. why couldnt the same be true for glaciers????

No glaciers are not ice cubes, glaciers move down using gravity usually down mountainous areas not "water" which are high enough for the ice to form and be compacted. Also added to the fact glaciers contain massive boulders.

3. fossils can be evolutionist fakes. this has been shown in the past and i see no reasonw hy we should believe anything they "find" now.

And I think the overwhelming evidence FOR fossils is not off set by a few fakes.