TrueCreation said:
--My point was that it is quite apparent that most of the creationists you converse with are "Hovindites" and thus have a tendency to presuppose those views they parrot from hovind on every creationist (but then again this goes the same for Wyatt, brown, Gish, et al.).
--This is not my basis.
I was not discussing your basis. I was commenting on the implications of the catastrophic plate tectonics for the religious positions espoused for 1) the authors of the papers as expressed on other forums and 2) Biblical literalists.
There was no reason for you to have taken my comments about Baumgardner and company as applying to you.
So it would seem that you have given up Biblical literalism.
--This seems a bit off to the side of a point. My point was that given the evidence for plate tectonics, a theory which includes this evidence is the foundation of modern catastrophic geology.
--What do you think 'flood geology' means?
Flood Geology is the general theory that all the geological formations -- particularly all those involving sedimentary rock -- were formed in a single world-wide Flood in the recent past.
--They do? Well please enlighten me. It is my impression that the runaway subduction model itself works near flawlessly. Of course there are drastic implications which need to be dealt with, such as cooling of the new oceanic lithosphere and an abundance of others, but the research is forthcoming. I don't think CPT is bad science, i think it is science in progress.
What do you mean by "flawlessly"? It gets the continents apart within the year allowed by the Noachian Deluge, but, if you are not relying on the Bible, why do you need to have the continents move within a year?
Those "drastic implications" are in reality deductions from the theory that would happen
if the theory were true. Since those deductions -- massive heat release for one -- result in observations contrary to what we see, then the data we already have falsifies the theory. What you call "need to be dealt with" is in reality new ad hoc hypotheses to take care of the problem.
What "research is forthcoming"? Where are any of these guys actually going out and looking at the rocks to see if they conform to their theory? Where is the theory being tested on specific strata to show that those strata could
only have been formed by this theory? There is no research that I can see. It's simply apologetics.
--good thing I don't agree with their 'tenents' then, eh?
If you really believed that you are to look
only at the evidence and are not basing the need of a Flood on a literal reading of Genesis 1-8, then you would have come to the same conclusions all geologists have: that the geological evidence falsifies Flood Geology no matter what mechanism is used. There are simply too many geological formations that could not have been formed by a world-wide Flood.
--How many rivers do you think are on the earth, even in that general fashion?
But these aren't just
any rivers, are they? They are
specific rivers in Mesopotamia. Rivers known to everyone. The Bible is identifying pre-Flood locations by post-Flood rivers. To change that you have to say that this part of the Bible is not literal history or science. While you can do that, Baumgardner supposedly cannot. After all, he is a member of ICR. So is Austin. Don't you think they need to withdraw from ICR because they are obviously not keeping their oath?
But the geography is going to be massively changed in any of the catatrophic plate tectonic models. So these guys are saying the Bible is not historically and scientifically accurate. That is dreadful, isn't it?
--What is dreadful is the deduction you just made.
How are my deductions off? How is Baumgardner's runaway subduction using massive erosion caused by a Flood
not going to change geography? How can it avoid it? Where are all those millions of tons of sediment going to come from?
"The bible doesn't seem to have much of a care about explaining how things happened, but merely that they happened." --I do?? wow, I'm in waiting for another fantastic interpretation of my words!
How else would you interpret your words? I put them up there for you again. One of the basic arguments of theistic evolution is that the Bible is not a science book. Doesn't your sentence sound a lot like it? If your words are not theistic evolution, would you please explain to us how they are not?
{quote] --The driving force of runaway subduction is the gravitational potential energy in the oceanic plates. So basically the slab pull and gravitational sliding forces are the effective forces allowing subduction. The rapid velocities implied by runaway subduction result from runaway instabilities in the mantle around the subducting slab, the heat implied is substantial but is released as the plate is subducted into the mantle in downwelling convection. Virtually none(or at least no substantial quantity) of this heat escapes the earth's deep interior. [/quote]
Now, one of the basic observations of physics is that gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy as the object moves closer to the center of the earth. That's what kills you when you fall, remember? Now, as that motion is stopped, the kinetic energy is converted to heat. Since the mantle is in contact with the surface strata, what is to stop the heat being transferred to that strata? Simple conduction. Please tell us in detail Baumgardners's insulation that prevents such conduction. I couldn't find it anywhere in his papers. Perhaps I missed it.
Can you imagine the tsumanis raised? The Ark could never have withstood them. Can you imagine the moving standing waves when two tsumanis collide? Walls of water miles high! The Ark is supposed to survive this?
I would rather make my deductions from the data, not my imagination.
LOL! Nice attempt at a duck. I did make my deductions from the data, didn't I? I deduces from the earthquakes under the surface that there are going to be tsumanis. From the correlation of the magnitude of modern tsunamis to the causal earthquakes, I came up with the massive size of the tsunamis that would result from Baumgardner's continental movement. Not to mention the huge "bow wave" and "wake" of whole continents moving that fast! Now, using standard hydrodynamics, we know what happens when two waves collide -- you get a standing wave. All you have to do is add the magnitudes to get the heights of the standing waves that will result.
Now, I simply applied that to another part of Flood Geology: that representative animals were preserved in a man-made "Ark". But no construction made of wood is going to be able to withstand those seas. I base that on calculations based on the plans of the Ark given in the Bible plus the experiences of human vessels thruout history in far less severe conditions. Baumbgardner's runaway plate subduction combined with a Flood is going to result in wiping out all land life (including plants) on earth. Since there is land life around, the existence of such life means that catastrophic plate tectonics didn't happen.
--What ad hoc hypothesis?
An ad hoc hypothesis is a hypothesis made to keep the favored hypothesis from being falsified. In this case, it was catastrophic geology that was falsified. The evidence shows that, while there have been local catastrophes, there has never been a world-wide catastrophe that caused all the geological features. In particular, plate tectonics and their slow movement constituted one of those falsifications.
So now, instead of accepting that falsification, the authors mentioned have come up with an ad hoc hypothesis: plate tectonics operated at speeds millions of times faster than plate tectonics states.
One of the problems of ad hoc hypotheses is that they not only have to solve the problem they are designed for, but they still must be consistent with all other data and not contradict other hypotheses. This one doesn't.
