Earth Tilt Question

[juvenissun]

Juvie, discussing wether or not someone can be 90% pregnant is not just off topic for this thread, but is plain silly.

Orogeny, it is sad to see yet another person become frustrated by Juvie's inabilty to not just look at evidence, but even to carry on a rational conversation. Is Juvie an example of what young earth creationism does to one's brain?

Juvie, here is our list. Orogeny has now also directly asked #8. Orogeny, you can see by going over the past several pages how Juvie has repeatedly claimed to have these other models of earth tilt formation, but still refuses to let us in on his secret gnosis.

• Earth tilt thread question #1 (ETQ #1)Doe Juve think that the earth is about 6,000 years old, as described by a literal reading of the geneologies in genesis (see post #161)? ****answered - he does - correction - unclear again. He says the ages are literally correct, but that they aren't literally correct. See other thread. *******
• ETQ2: Which Bible has Juve chosen as the one correct Bible, and why does he feel this one Bible is correct and the others wrong? (See post #161)
• ETQ3: Juve, would you like to change your enthusiatically favororable review of this site?
  World Mysteries - Science Mysteries - Pole Shifting
• ETQ4: What are you talking about in this quote:

May be. But at least they think it that way. You do not even think that way. This is similar to a church goer and one who does not attend any church. (maybe just drop this one, it appears to be just another example of Juvie's word salad.)

• ETQ5: Can you clarify which ideas you see as "good ideas" in your pseudoscience pole shifting web page?
• ETQ6: So you are saying that birds were created before any land animals, etc? Do you think the fossil record agrees with the order in genesis?
  ETQ7: How are you resolving the literal difference between the plants made before humans in Gen 1, and plants literally only after humans in Gen 2, without adding words that are not in the text? Or do you think it is OK to add words when you want to? Of course, if Juve decides it is OK to see Genesis figuratively, then these two stories can be seen as just two sides of the same story.
  
  ETQ8: You said you were evaluating all models of the origin of Earth tilt. We've seen that the flood idea of Earth tilt not only has too many problems to count, but has been dropped even by creationists. So why not tentatively accept the leading scientific explanation, the theia impact? What other models are you evaluating? (asked by Orogeny too).

I said it a few times.

A global flood induced by a sudden and fast crust shifting. The movement of water and rock on the surface of the earth tilted the axis of the earth.

Try to search "polar shifting", you will find A LOT of people talked about a similar idea. A story-telling style reference is here.

 

[Papias]

Oh! OK, your reference to that NG article sorts out a lot.

What's going on here is conflation of two very different ideas.

The first that there is real geological research into the idea of pole changes before the Permian, including things like balance of the Earth and such. These, though they don't have a lot of evidence, are possible and in accordance with modern geology. They involve a rate of many hundreds of thousands of years per degree of shift, and are not something you'd notice if it were going on now. While that is "very rapid" on geologic standards, it is very slow on human lifespan standards. This is where the NG article you cited comes from, and this real hypothesis would not cause a worldwide flood, becuase it would not be a noticeable change.

The other idea is New Age and Pseudoscientific reference to these shifts as something that would make a worldwide disaster that would kill people, and be "rapid" on the scale of a person's day to day life. In other words, people would notice it - indeed, be swept away by it. These crackpot approaches use the language of "rapid shift", to convince people they mean the disaster scenario, when they don't. They fool all kinds of people by taking quotes of "sudden" or "rapid" out of context, and go on to extrapolate the idea that this would cause tsunamis and such.

I understand how easy it is to get fooled by this, but whether the pseudoscience used the mayan calendar doomsday of May 5th, 2012, or uses Biblical creationism, it is equally baseless, and often, equally profitable for the shiester.

Take some time to look into it. Let me know what you find.

Papias

 

[Papias]

I wrote to Juvie:

Take some time to look into it. Let me know what you find.

It's been about a month. Juvie, if you've found time to look into it and are interested in discussing it now, we can. Or, if you are still looking into it, we can let this sit some more.

Have a good day-

Papias

 

[juvenissun]

I wrote to Juvie:


It's been about a month. Juvie, if you've found time to look into it and are interested in discussing it now, we can. Or, if you are still looking into it, we can let this sit some more.

Have a good day-

Papias

Sorry, I thought this thread is done. I rather answer question or challenge. So, what about the "rapid" change? How about that the continent moves 1 cm per year in average? Is it slow or rapid?

 

[Papias]

Juvie, we had put this thread on temporary hold specifically to give you time to learn about those two different ideas. You can see this in post #302, which was the last post until recently. I'm sorry that you seem to have thought the thread was completely abandoned. With that being the case, I'd guess that you haven't learned about these two different ideas, and as such, it's probably a good idea to give you the time to do that.

"rapid" obviously means different things in different contexts. It is by sowing confusing over the meaning of that word that creationists attempt to use the real scientific data to support a fictional pole shift. Please post again when you understand the difference between the two ideas described in post #302. Thank you-

Papias

 

[juvenissun]

Juvie, we had put this thread on temporary hold specifically to give you time to learn about those two different ideas. You can see this in post #302, which was the last post until recently. I'm sorry that you seem to have thought the thread was completely abandoned. With that being the case, I'd guess that you haven't learned about these two different ideas, and as such, it's probably a good idea to give you the time to do that.

"rapid" obviously means different things in different contexts. It is by sowing confusing over the meaning of that word that creationists attempt to use the real scientific data to support a fictional pole shift. Please post again when you understand the difference between the two ideas described in post #302. Thank you-

Papias

I gave you an example: Crust movement at an average rate of 1 cm/yr. Is it fast or slow?

OK, if you say it is neither fast, nor slow. Then try this: 10 cm/yr. Is it fast enough?

 

[Papias]

You are still refusing to learn about these two different ideas presented. 1 cm a year is about what we have at present, 10 c,/yr would be fast on the geologic scale in comparsion to 1 cm/yr, but way too slow to cause flooding or be noticeable - because it is not fast on the human experience scale.

The bottom line is that pseudoscience supporters (in this case new agers) are using the term "fast" from the geologic scale, then misrepresenting it as "fast" on the human experience scale, to make the deceptive point that the geologic research supports their crackpot idea of noticeable shifting.

You understand that, right Juvie?

Please post again when you understand the difference between the two ideas described in post #302. Thank you-

 

[The Lady Kate]

I gave you an example: Crust movement at an average rate of 1 cm/yr. Is it fast or slow?

OK, if you say it is neither fast, nor slow. Then try this: 10 cm/yr. Is it fast enough?

Fast enough for what?

 

[juvenissun]

You are still refusing to learn about these two different ideas presented. 1 cm a year is about what we have at present, 10 c,/yr would be fast on the geologic scale in comparsion to 1 cm/yr, but way too slow to cause flooding or be noticeable - because it is not fast on the human experience scale.

The bottom line is that pseudoscience supporters (in this case new agers) are using the term "fast" from the geologic scale, then misrepresenting it as "fast" on the human experience scale, to make the deceptive point that the geologic research supports their crackpot idea of noticeable shifting.

You understand that, right Juvie?

Please post again when you understand the difference between the two ideas described in post #302. Thank you-

Who is talking about human experience scale? Are we talking about at least 6000 years? probably 10,000 years? Also, look at what you said: 10 cm/yr is slow to human experience, but it would be fast if human can live much longer. Does that make sense? Is it backward?

So, in that time interval (scale), is the speed of 10 cm/yr (continental movement) fast or slow?

Yes, LadyKate's question is a good one: fast or slow for what? May be you can clear that up.

 

[Papias]

Juvie wrote:

Who is talking about human experience scale?

You did. In fact, you said it a few times.


Juvie wrote:

I said it a few times.

A global flood induced by a sudden and fast crust shifting. The movement of water and rock on the surface of the earth tilted the axis of the earth.

None of those shifts would cause flooding, certainly not violent or noticeable flooding, no matter how long people lived. Do you really think that if someonelives longer they see all of existence sped up like in a B-rated Kung-fu movie?

Papias

 

[juvenissun]

Juvie wrote:

You did. In fact, you said it a few times.


Juvie wrote:


None of those shifts would cause flooding, certainly not violent or noticeable flooding, no matter how long people lived. Do you really think that if someonelives longer they see all of existence sped up like in a B-rated Kung-fu movie?

Papias

You felt the problem (question), but you failed to see the exact question.

A global flood possibly triggered by a sudden crustal movement has nothing to do with the average rate of plate (crustal) movement.

 

[Orogeny]

There is no evidence of a 'sudden crustal movement' of the magnitude required to produce a global flood.

Before you ask 'well what evidence would there be', I'll give you a couple examples:

The best indicator would be rampant, simultaneous vulcanism occurring across all (or most) active volcanic terrains. We do not see this.

There would be evidence of extreme seismic upheval, likely 10+ on the Richter scale. This would result in seismites in essentially all unlithified, water saturated sedimentary piles (deltas, shorefaces, marshes) of that age. We see this nowhere.

ETA: You know, not to mention the fact that a 'sudden crustal movement' of this type is mechanically impossible.

 

[juvenissun]

There is no evidence of a 'sudden crustal movement' of the magnitude required to produce a global flood.

Before you ask 'well what evidence would there be', I'll give you a couple examples:

The best indicator would be rampant, simultaneous vulcanism occurring across all (or most) active volcanic terrains. We do not see this.

There would be evidence of extreme seismic upheval, likely 10+ on the Richter scale. This would result in seismites in essentially all unlithified, water saturated sedimentary piles (deltas, shorefaces, marshes) of that age. We see this nowhere.

ETA: You know, not to mention the fact that a 'sudden crustal movement' of this type is mechanically impossible.

Sorry, I am not a geologist. So I will not discussion this issue with you.

 

[Papias]

Juvie wrote:

Sorry, I am not a geologist. So I will not discussion this issue with you.

So you are admitting that your "crustal shifts causing a global flood" idea has zero scientific merit, and moving on to discuss one of the other waiting points?

Papias

 

[Orogeny]

Sorry, I am not a geologist. So I will not discussion this issue with you.

So you're unwilling to discuss your ideas with someone who might be able to refute them? Typical creationist. Well, at least you're honest about it.

 

[juvenissun]

Juvie wrote:



So you are admitting that your "crustal shifts causing a global flood" idea has zero scientific merit, and moving on to discuss one of the other waiting points?

Papias

It is a good idea. The movie "2012" was made based on this idea. But I don't think it was the situation seen by Noah. The source of water is very different in these two cases. The sudden (or fast) crust movement itself is a main argument in my model of Noah's Flood. Flood in associated with the movement (tsunami type) is not essential, even it could still be significant.

 

[Orogeny]

You do realize that the entire premise of "2012" is unbelievably fantastical, right? You understand that it's not possible for neutrinos released from solar flares to heat up the core of the earth? And that it's particularly impossible for this to happen without every living thing on the surface of the earth being vaporized first? You realize it's impossible to outrun a pyroclastic flow in a pickup truck or a light aircraft? That bimodal vulcanism doesn't occur on the scale of minutes? That it's impossible for the entire continent of Africa to suddenly rise several thousand feet in elevation for no apparent reason? That every single plot point in the movie is pure, unadulterated malarkey? Especially the part about the Chinese building reliable vehicles?

Ugh. It's like you're not even trying anymore.

Side note: What the heck was going on when the crust just started collapsing in that movie? Not rifting, not spreading, it was simply dropping straight down. That implies space into which the crust could drop. WHAT?? The crust is floating on air? Where did this space come from? I knew going into the movie that it would be hugely unrealistic, but come on Bay, that's just too much. I expected to have a hardy laugh during the flick, but after about half an hour it was just an endless string of Picards. In that sense, it reminded me a lot of this place.

 

[The Lady Kate]

It is a good idea. The movie "2012" was made based on this idea. But I don't think it was the situation seen by Noah. The source of water is very different in these two cases. The sudden (or fast) crust movement itself is a main argument in my model of Noah's Flood. Flood in associated with the movement (tsunami type) is not essential, even it could still be significant.

Brother, you're getting your science from Hollywood... seek help.

 

[juvenissun]

You do realize that the entire premise of "2012" is unbelievably fantastical, right? You understand that it's not possible for neutrinos released from solar flares to heat up the core of the earth? And that it's particularly impossible for this to happen without every living thing on the surface of the earth being vaporized first? You realize it's impossible to outrun a pyroclastic flow in a pickup truck or a light aircraft? That bimodal vulcanism doesn't occur on the scale of minutes? That it's impossible for the entire continent of Africa to suddenly rise several thousand feet in elevation for no apparent reason? That every single plot point in the movie is pure, unadulterated malarkey? Especially the part about the Chinese building reliable vehicles?

Ugh. It's like you're not even trying anymore.

Side note: What the heck was going on when the crust just started collapsing in that movie? Not rifting, not spreading, it was simply dropping straight down. That implies space into which the crust could drop. WHAT?? The crust is floating on air? Where did this space come from? I knew going into the movie that it would be hugely unrealistic, but come on Bay, that's just too much. I expected to have a hardy laugh during the flick, but after about half an hour it was just an endless string of Picards. In that sense, it reminded me a lot of this place.

Don't forget that it is a movie of fiction. Details are exaggerated, but the theme is theoretically possible.

 

[juvenissun]

Brother, you're getting your science from Hollywood... seek help.

There are many science consultants work in filmmaking. A wise person knows how to read science in movies. Is there a program in the Discovery (Science) channel called "science of fiction"? What science can you see on the lightsaber in the Star War?