Do YEC acknowledge tectonic plate movement?

Mallon · Aug 10, 2010

In my experience, YECs accept plate tectonism only so far as it suits their preconvictions. For example, they accept the existence of Pangaea because they can make it jive with Genesis' reference to the "days of Peleg", but they reject the evidence for the existence of other supercontinents such as Rodinia or Columbia. They also reject the Wilson cycle and the mechanisms that are known to drive plate tectonics. So sure, they accept that the lithosphere is divided up into movable plates, but they pretty much summarily reject the science of plate tectonics.

juvenissun · Aug 10, 2010

Cabal said:
You thought wrong.

Only when their attempts at constant extrapolation fail, and their sudden shifts usually cannot be explained unless a goddidit is invoked, which is what they should have done to start with, YECism is a one trick pony.

YEC may play trick. But Evolutionist should not.
So, what is the evolutionist's argument for the moon orbit model?

juvenissun · Aug 10, 2010

Mallon said:
In my experience, YECs accept plate tectonism only so far as it suits their preconvictions. For example, they accept the existence of Pangaea because they can make it jive with Genesis' reference to the "days of Peleg", but they reject the evidence for the existence of other supercontinents such as Rodinia or Columbia. They also reject the Wilson cycle and the mechanisms that are known to drive plate tectonics. So sure, they accept that the lithosphere is divided up into movable plates, but they pretty much summarily reject the science of plate tectonics.

This is a reply to 98cwitr:

What Mallon said is only 10% true. (The 10% figure is my estimation. )

Mallon · Aug 10, 2010

juvenissun said:
This is a reply to 98cwitr:

What Mallon said is only 10% true. (The 10% figure is my estimation. )

Is it? How many YECs here accept the existence of Rodinia 1,100 million years ago? How many YECs here accept that the current configuration of the earth's plates was driven by natural convection in the mantle?

Cabal · Aug 10, 2010

juvenissun said:
If you want to talk about it, I am here to listen.

So, the moon was much closer to the earth. Any problem with that? If not, then what happened afterwards?

Lunar recession rate is not a problem for us at all. It only is for YECs if they make the argument where they argue using a constant recession rate. Beyond that it is no more an issue than any other piece of evidence for an old solar system, YECs will just ignore it like they do the remainder.

juvenissun said:
YEC may play trick. But Evolutionist should not.

Nice to see integrity is alive and well among YECs.

So, what is the evolutionist's argument for the moon orbit model?

What does orbital mechanics have to do with evolution?

theFijian · Aug 10, 2010

juvenissun said:
This is a reply to 98cwitr:

What Mallon said is only 10% true. (The 10% figure is my estimation. )

Did you know 74.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

shernren · Aug 10, 2010

theFijian said:
Did you know 74.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

But only (17.9 +/- 0.5)% of them have error bars!

juvenissun · Aug 10, 2010

Cabal said:
Lunar recession rate is not a problem for us at all. It only is for YECs if they make the argument where they argue using a constant recession rate. Beyond that it is no more an issue than any other piece of evidence for an old solar system, YECs will just ignore it like they do the remainder.

Nice to see integrity is alive and well among YECs.

What does orbital mechanics have to do with evolution?

Do you think the recession rate is not a constant?
If it were not, then why should the mutation rate be a constant?

juvenissun · Aug 10, 2010

Mallon said:
Is it? How many YECs here accept the existence of Rodinia 1,100 million years ago? How many YECs here accept that the current configuration of the earth's plates was driven by natural convection in the mantle?

Rodinia does not provide any more evidence of plate tectonics than Pangaea does. In fact, we suggest the existence of Rodinia based on our understanding of Pangaea. As long as we can explain the old mountains, we do not need any supercontinent older than Pangaea.

Mantle convection is an idea of 101 level. It only applies to oceans. The model disintegrated right at the subduction zone.

Just like evolution, plate tectonics is a model, not a truth. YEC cautiously evaluate the mechanism of plate tectonics. And YEC do have problem with the timing of it.

Mallon · Aug 10, 2010

juvenissun said:
Rodinia does not provide any more evidence of plate tectonics than Pangaea does. In fact, we suggest the existence of Rodinia based on our understanding of Pangaea. As long as we can explain the old mountains, we do not need any supercontinent older than Pangaea.

That makes no sense, juvie. Pangaea doesn't account for the distribution of any orogenic events before the Permian. What about Neoproterozoic orogens like the Grenville orogeny in North America, the Uralian orogeny in Siberia, or the Dalslandian orogeny in Europe? Only the existence of an earlier supercontinent accounts for these.

Mantle convection is an idea of 101 level. It only applies to oceans. The model disintegrated right at the subduction zone.

That doesn't even make any sense.

Just like evolution, plate tectonics is a model, not a truth. YEC cautiously evaluate the mechanism of plate tectonics. And YEC do have problem with the timing of it.

Of course YECs have a problem with it -- it flies in the face of their concordist interpretation of the Bible. The science of the mechanisms involved has nothing to do with it. YECs aren't concerned about accounting for plate tectonics with valid scientific mechanisms. This is why they have to invoke miracles at every turn in order to make their favoured "runaway subduction" models work.

rcorlew · Aug 10, 2010

theFijian said:
Did you know 74.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

Hey I had to take an analytical statistics class and the real ones are far from made up 95% of the time with a 5% confidence level, of course this goes without saying that there is a margin of error of +/- 5%.

shernren · Aug 11, 2010

That's right folks, 95% of real statistics aren't made up on the spot. +/-5% of course. This is awesome

juvenissun · Aug 11, 2010

Mallon said:
That makes no sense, juvie. Pangaea doesn't account for the distribution of any orogenic events before the Permian. What about Neoproterozoic orogens like the Grenville orogeny in North America, the Uralian orogeny in Siberia, or the Dalslandian orogeny in Europe? Only the existence of an earlier supercontinent accounts for these.

That doesn't even make any sense.

Of course YECs have a problem with it -- it flies in the face of their concordist interpretation of the Bible. The science of the mechanisms involved has nothing to do with it. YECs aren't concerned about accounting for plate tectonics with valid scientific mechanisms. This is why they have to invoke miracles at every turn in order to make their favoured "runaway subduction" models work.

We do not need a supercontinent to make a major mountain range.

Cabal · Aug 11, 2010

juvenissun said:
Do you think the recession rate is not a constant?
If it were not, then why should the mutation rate be a constant?

What does orbital mechanics have to do with evolution?

Mallon · Aug 11, 2010

juvenissun said:
We do not need a supercontinent to make a major mountain range.

You do if that range stretches across three continents.

98cwitr · Aug 11, 2010

Mallon said:
You do if that range stretches across three continents.

tr00f.com

juvenissun · Aug 11, 2010

Cabal said:
What does orbital mechanics have to do with evolution?

Constant rate, or not.

Cabal · Aug 11, 2010

juvenissun said:
Constant rate, or not.

Again, why should the rate of change of an orbital mechanics parameter have anything to do with that of a parameter in evolution?

juvenissun · Aug 11, 2010

Cabal said:
Again, why should the rate of change of an orbital mechanics parameter have anything to do with that of a parameter in evolution?

Never mind. You do not want to think about it, then just quit.

Cabal · Aug 11, 2010

juvenissun said:
Never mind. You do not want to think about it, then just quit.

I do want to discuss it. I'm asking you what the two have to do with each other. You seem to think that by admitting that we accept that one particular parameter has a varying rate of change that somehow we have denied "one of the basic principle" (sic) of evolution.

I'm asking you to justify that remark, and the first step is to explain what in the world orbital mechanics has to do with biological evolution. Perhaps you are labouring under some misapprehension that contemporary science is characterised by constant rates of naturalistic processes occuring.

If you don't want to think about it, or just be evasive, maybe you should quit.

Do YEC acknowledge tectonic plate movement?

Senior Veteran

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

you are not reading this.

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

Senior Veteran

Serving His Flock

you are not reading this.

... and God saw that it was good.

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Lord forgive me

... and God saw that it was good.

Well-Known Member

... and God saw that it was good.

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency