Plate Tectonics

[Strathos]

A creationist would likely claim that God mitigated the consequences of such catastrophism, but that leaves the question of why all the physical evidence suggests gradualism, unless you believe God is deliberately deceiving us.

 

[NannaNae]

it maybe poetic and munchy even.. but it is lie.

 

[Roonwit]

Just curious, how many creationists here accept the theory of plate tectonics?

Strathos

Tentatively, I put my vote on yes. I am inclined to think that the earth's oceans have been resurfaced at least once, perhaps several times, broadly in line with the conventional theory, though on a different timescale.

In my experience (I have been a creationist and taken an active interest in creation/evolution for over 20 years now, since I was a child), most creationists believe that there was a single landmass before the Flood that broke up during the Flood. I actually belong to a minority strand of creationism (yes, that makes it a very small group!) that would see the fossil record as mostly post-Flood, and so I would see the resurfacing event(s) as also happening post-Flood. That said, I believe that raises some difficulties regarding how to get rid of the heat, though I don't know how great that problem is, nor whether it is solvable. I would therefore hold open the possibilities of reverting to the mainstream creationist position (which puts the continent break-up during the Flood) or to rejecting plate tectonics altogether. I'm afraid I don't know enough of the technical geological details to decide definitively on the merits of those various positions.

Roonwit

 

[Strathos]

Strathos

Tentatively, I put my vote on yes. I am inclined to think that the earth's oceans have been resurfaced at least once, perhaps several times, broadly in line with the conventional theory, though on a different timescale.

In my experience (I have been a creationist and taken an active interest in creation/evolution for over 20 years now, since I was a child), most creationists believe that there was a single landmass before the Flood that broke up during the Flood. I actually belong to a minority strand of creationism (yes, that makes it a very small group!) that would see the fossil record as mostly post-Flood, and so I would see the resurfacing event(s) as also happening post-Flood. That said, I believe that raises some difficulties regarding how to get rid of the heat, though I don't know how great that problem is, nor whether it is solvable. I would therefore hold open the possibilities of reverting to the mainstream creationist position (which puts the continent break-up during the Flood) or to rejecting plate tectonics altogether. I'm afraid I don't know enough of the technical geological details to decide definitively on the merits of those various positions.

Roonwit

Interesting.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why do you think it is so wrong? Have you read anything about it? Why do you think they have got it so wrong?

Because "bible".

Seriously, do you really expect another answer?

Surely if the theory was as completely wrong as you imply they would be unable to find these reserves, yet that is not the case. Why?

"Satan".

 

[fargonic]

it maybe poetic and munchy even.. but it is lie.

How do you know it is a "lie"? Are you highly knowledgable about the topic?

Do you feel that the geophysicists across the world over the past 50 years are lying or simply stupid?

Judge not lest ye be judged. This is how we should live. If you disagree with the science please explain to us your disagreement, but unless you are certain that the science has been willfully misrepresented by the scientists you have no call to call it a "lie".

 

[NannaNae]

How do you know it is a "lie"? Are you highly knowledgable about the topic?

Do you feel that the geophysicists across the world over the past 50 years are lying or simply stupid?

Judge not lest ye be judged. This is how we should live. If you disagree with the science please explain to us your disagreement, but unless you are certain that the science has been willfully misrepresented by the scientists you have no call to call it a "lie".

it has been willful!

 

[juvenissun]

What parts don't you agree with then.

The unknown parts.

Do you know what are not known in Plate Tectonics? I think you just mentioned the viscosity of the asthenosphere material. Yes, that is one of them.

So, let me make you to think: Assume a range of viscosity in the asthenosphere, then what would be the consequences? Can that explain some of the features we see on the surface?

 

[juvenissun]

A creationist would likely claim that God mitigated the consequences of such catastrophism, but that leaves the question of why all the physical evidence suggests gradualism, unless you believe God is deliberately deceiving us.

If you know plate tectonics, you will see gradualism is, in fact, wrong in that theory. Does a plate really move 5 cm/yr? You better not believe that.

 

[juvenissun]

Strathos

Tentatively, I put my vote on yes. I am inclined to think that the earth's oceans have been resurfaced at least once, perhaps several times, broadly in line with the conventional theory, though on a different timescale.

In my experience (I have been a creationist and taken an active interest in creation/evolution for over 20 years now, since I was a child), most creationists believe that there was a single landmass before the Flood that broke up during the Flood. I actually belong to a minority strand of creationism (yes, that makes it a very small group!) that would see the fossil record as mostly post-Flood, and so I would see the resurfacing event(s) as also happening post-Flood. That said, I believe that raises some difficulties regarding how to get rid of the heat, though I don't know how great that problem is, nor whether it is solvable. I would therefore hold open the possibilities of reverting to the mainstream creationist position (which puts the continent break-up during the Flood) or to rejecting plate tectonics altogether. I'm afraid I don't know enough of the technical geological details to decide definitively on the merits of those various positions.

Roonwit

If the movement is well lubricated, there will not be much heat to make.

 

[fargonic]

The unknown parts.

Do you know what are not known in Plate Tectonics? I think you just mentioned the viscosity of the asthenosphere material. Yes, that is one of them.

So do you not trust the seismic wave propogation times and the mineralogical phase relationships in the aesthenosphre?

So, let me make you to think: Assume a range of viscosity in the asthenosphere, then what would be the consequences? Can that explain some of the features we see on the surface?

The aesthenosphere needs to be of sufficiently low viscosity to support convection in order to allow the lithospheric plates to move. P-waves move somewhat slower and s-waves are attenuated at a point indicative of the aesthenosphere which is to be expected in a more viscous zone. This is called the "low velocity zone" in geology as I understand it.

The results are seen in the form of supporting plate motions. In conjunction with slab pull at the convergent margins (subduction zones) and slab push at the divergent margins (mid ocean ridges) we have a very good means of providing for plate motion.

 

[juvenissun]

So do you not trust the seismic wave propogation times and the mineralogical phase relationships in the aesthenosphre?


The aesthenosphere needs to be of sufficiently low viscosity to support convection in order to allow the lithospheric plates to move. P-waves move somewhat slower and s-waves are attenuated at a point indicative of the aesthenosphere which is to be expected in a more viscous zone. This is called the "low velocity zone" in geology as I understand it.

The results are seen in the form of supporting plate motions. In conjunction with slab pull at the convergent margins (subduction zones) and slab push at the divergent margins (mid ocean ridges) we have a very good means of providing for plate motion.

So you believe the asthenosphere is a layer of homogenous material?
If not, can you tell where is less viscous than other places? Should there be any consequence of having lower viscosity?

What you said is 100 level content. My question is at least 600 level or higher. I don't know the answer. That is why I don't believe what other people said.

 

[bhsmte]

I refuse.. that stuff only makes sense if you are high in a class room with people who are high being taught by a professor who is probably high.
then I am sure it is brilliant..... of course so is their own buggers and even they can become poetic " metaphorically speaking"..
so no thanks..

Cool story.

 

[fargonic]

So you believe the asthenosphere is a layer of homogenous material?

Does it have to be? Isn't the important thing the overall bulk viscosity?

If not, can you tell where is less viscous than other places? Should there be any consequence of having lower viscosity?

The s-wave attenuation tells you that. Since S-waves are attenuated in lower viscosity materials as I understand it, this tells you where the viscosity is lower.

I assume that the aesthenosphere isn't the same thickness everywhere or that the boundaries are exact lines but this doesn't seem to really matter much.

What you said is 100 level content. My question is at least 600 level or higher.

You are very rude. I am sorry if I am not a professional geologist but I'm thinking that what I posted was far more detailed than anything else I've seen on this thread. Please do not insult other posters.

I don't know the answer. That is why I don't believe what other people said.

I have yet to see what, specifically, you feel is unbelievable in the geology. You have so far asked very vague questions without any explanation and when people dare to provide actual information you denigrate it as below your level.

 

[florida2]

it maybe poetic and munchy even.. but it is lie.

Then why is it used so successfully every day by oil and gas explorers to work out where reserves can be found? If they did not have a very good understanding of how the Earth works, they'd never find anything.

Apart from the fact that you have not addressed any specific parts of plate tectonic that you have issue with, how could a theory which is a lie be used successfully to explore the Earth? Surely it would fail every time?

 

[juvenissun]

Does it have to be? Isn't the important thing the overall bulk viscosity?

The s-wave attenuation tells you that. Since S-waves are attenuated in lower viscosity materials as I understand it, this tells you where the viscosity is lower.

I assume that the aesthenosphere isn't the same thickness everywhere or that the boundaries are exact lines but this doesn't seem to really matter much.

You are very rude. I am sorry if I am not a professional geologist but I'm thinking that what I posted was far more detailed than anything else I've seen on this thread. Please do not insult other posters.

I have yet to see what, specifically, you feel is unbelievable in the geology. You have so far asked very vague questions without any explanation and when people dare to provide actual information you denigrate it as below your level.

I am sorry if you felt insulted. You don't have to. You made 100 level explanation does not mean you are at 100 level. I never say you are.

Without having a model presented to me, I do not know what would I oppose to. You asked me what do I disagree about. I need to have a target to disagree. So far, I don't see any. Since I don't know much of the answer, you can imagine that I do not agree with many of the current models (don't ask me to name them. if you like to, you find one and I would tell you what is wrong with it)

The viscosity of asthenosphere is heterogeneous. This should be VERY important to the behavior of plates we observed on the surface.

 

[fargonic]

Without having a model presented to me, I do not know what would I oppose to.

The model is available and has been for decades.

You asked me what do I disagree about. I need to have a target to disagree.[ So far, I don't see any.

So now you are saying you don't see anything to disagree with?

Since I don't know much of the answer, you can imagine that I do not agree with many of the current models (don't ask me to name them. if you like to, you find one and I would tell you what is wrong with it)

Go ahead and name one. I would be glad to see what your disagreements are, but right now I'm hard pressed to understand what your points are. I assume that you are like me and just an amateur arm-chair geologist. So you are among friends here. Feel free to discuss at your appropriate level.

The viscosity of asthenosphere is heterogeneous.

vertically or horizontally? And by how much? How big a difference do you find and based on what data?

 

[dad]

Just curious, how many creationists here accept the theory of plate tectonics?

Not me.

 

[fargonic]

Not me.

Why not?

 

[juvenissun]

vertically or horizontally? And by how much? How big a difference do you find and based on what data?

I can find some data on that. But it would be meaningless until someone use them for something.