Frumious Bandersnatch said:
You seem to have a good grasp of geophysics but maybe you need to study some thermodynamics and chemistry to understand more of what is wrong with CPT.
I am confident that I understand far more problems with the the current CPT hypothesis than yourself. However, the most apparent problem is that CPT is an underdeveloped hypothesis (not surprising as it is a very general hypothesis) which results in a tendency to be uncooperative with hypothesis testing as an attempt at 'falsification'. Let me try to explain this problem further;
The determination of instances of confirmation and disconfirmation in hypothesis tests can be represented by a (disjunctive) syllogism:
For confirming instance:
If
H (and
A1, A2, A3,.. An) then
T
T
therefore
H is confirmed
or a disconfirming instance:
if
H (and
A1, A2, A3,.. An) then
T
not
T
therefore
H is disconfirmed
Where
H is the hypothesis,
T is the Test Implication, and
An are auxiliary hypotheses (assumptions) required to be true for the premise "If
H then
T" to be meaningful. I have also illustrated this in the following diagram:
For Catastrophic Plate Tectonics, it is difficult for the hypothesis to confidently make specific statements about predicted phenomena because it is not well understood or well developed. Successful hypothesis testing via the logical scientific method I briefly illustrated above tends to fail and even "breaks down" due to inadequate understanding of what exactly would constitute a good test implication. I think that hypotheses go through a period of 'speculative testability', which exists prior to going through what I term
hypothesis development--a period where we attempt to isolate plausible test implications so that the hypothesis might be tested and the outcome (of confirmation or disconfirmation) can be considered well founded and credible. Hypothesis testing occuring prior to exiting this phase will always have a tendency to appear at first approximation to be a good test, but due to speculative auxiliary assumptions the outcome of the test is also speculative. Because the truth or falsity of those auxiliary assumptions inherent to the test are speculative, so is the conclusion of confirmation or disconfirmation from those tests. That CPT remains largely in this phase of speculative testability is problematic. It is my interest to develop the hypothesis further so that it might begin to cross this line of demarcation and become a relatively well understood hypothesis with the potential to make novel predictions.
Of course progress can be made in the development of hypotheses through presenting inconsistencies and attempting to find solutions to the problems. Science progresses both through induction and conjecture.
You know well that
Joe Meert presented this. I didn't see you refute it and I do understand the relationship between the age and depth of the seafloor. The equations are relatively simple.
Indeed I do understand this, and I disagree with Meert's conclusions (and thus yours). I think that the problem is in the way a convective cooling regime is treated. Meert says in his article:
Joe Meert: "The problem with convective models is that they would not generate an oceanic-depth profile consistent with conductive cooling. Convective heat transport is efficient and fast and would result in a profile that is basically flat during the rapid spreading portion of the flood."
The problem is that bathymetry is essentially a manifestation of the thickness of thermal lithosphere. I am not sure how Meert could realistically achieve flat bathymetry considering a regime of convection. The hydrothermal processes proposed to have occured during CPT would end as the associated mechanisms ceased operation and the ideal environment required for their activation no longer exists. The mechanisms and ideal environment are manifest as a result of all the major runaway processes (upwelling, fast spreading, and the propagation of stresses on the surface of rigid oceanic plates), thus it is likely that this convective regime would only exist during runaway. There are at least 4 fundamental variables which may serve to determine the thermal evolution of oceanic lithosphere during runaway:
(1) - The relative amount of time a certain column of lithosphere has been subject to the convective regime.
(2) - The nature of the 'rate' of hydrothermal penetration. The rate of penetration is likely to vary with depth in response to forces encountered at depth.
(3) - Decreasing efficiency of hydrothermal processes with depth in the lithosphere.
(4) - The approach of a maximum "ceiling" depth of hydrothermal penetration.
The first variable would tend to create a lithosphere which increases in depth linearly with age (flat but inclined, unlike Meerts model). The oldest lithosphere will have continued to increase in thickness for the entire span of time of runaway for which the convective regime exists. The youngest lithosphere today may not have existed for any period of runaway (The thickness of this lithosphere is due only to conduction and hydrothermal circulation as it is observed today). The second and third variables would be responsible for a parabolic increase in lithospheric depth with age. The 4th variable is well known in the geophysical literature and is attemptedly compensated for by "Plate Models" of cooling. Essentially a Plate Model is a modified HSCM (half-space cooling model) in which conduction ceases to increase the thickness of oceanic lithosphere as it approaches an assigned depth.
Therefore, I think that it is likely that at least the general parabolic nature of lithospheric depth will be produced during an event like CPT.
As to rocks, you need hyper-rapid cooling of the crust which would lead to very fine grained rocks. The papers have found on the subject seem to indicate that course grained gabbros are more common than obsidian or very fine grained rocks.
The thing is that grain size increases at various depths in the crust.
http://www2.ocean.washington.edu/oc540/lec01-1/fig12.gif
Surface volcanics are glassy from rapid cooling and subsurface gabbros are coarse grained.
Earlier I thought that the only possible explanation was that pressure somehow influenced crystal growth. However, recently I have reconsidered the possibility that it is due to heat transfer and temperature. Although I am sure it is more complex than this, I think that it might be possible for thermal recrystallization to occur from adiabatic heat conduction and exposure to moderate to high temperatures over years, decades, or even millenia. I am not quite sure, my thoughts on this topic are something of a jumbled mess at this point.
Without some very special method to blow the heat into space the oceans would boil and the earth would be too hot to live on for a long time. The only way the planet can shed heat into space is black body radiation and even Baumgardner realizes that BB radiation is insufficient to get rid of the heat but if you cool most of the crust this way you will get a lot very fine grained rock.
Actually, I think that you would get coarse grained rock. Nevertheless I generally agree.
I am quite sure I went through effects on the chemistry of the oceans for you before. The pH gets very acid. I don't know if can find it again. Have you forgotten it? I don't recall that you refuted it when I presented it.
I do recall but I do not remember the nature of your actual argument. Are you sure these minerals would not be precipitated?
So if he is wrong about that, why do you think he is right about the rest of his model?
Because it is not directly a part of runaway subduction. I think that vardiman was the one who did the work on Hypercanes and other hydrospheric and atmospheric processes. I find Baumgardners geodynamics model quite good, but I am not sure about Vardiman's work in meteorology.
Why don't you try to explain how the fossil record is consistent with flood deposition? You can start with a flood with boiling oceans and steamy hot rain falling on the earth since that is the one you seem to like?
I don't think that would be a good start.
when you do you maybe you will realize how absurd it is to think that animals coming off a boat two by two in the middle east could repopulate the world in a fashion consistent with today's biogeography. I have discussed this with YECs who claim to be experts in biogeography and they have no answers either so don't feel too bad.
Ah I see what you are implying. I am not dogmatic about completely covering the earth's land simultaneously. If this is the case it will be inferred from the data later--much later. It is entirely possible that a percentage of fauna (and of course flora) survived the event. Due to the nature of the event, however, I would guess not much. I would therefore presume that I have less of a problem with biogeography than dogmatic YEC's.
But if I throw several feet on them every day while they are immersed in water I don't expect them to keep building nests. Do you?
For ants, not while they are immersed in water, no. I think you are considering what I call the 'bathtub hypothesis' which is not a realistic depiction of CPT. One spot under water at one moment may be one spot above water the next.
I don't expect underwater burrowing animals to keep feeding and burrowing while sediment is being deposited on them at enormous rates. Do you?
Yes. What else are they going to do? Fold their arms, pout, and call it quits? I think the Haymond Formation (discussed in a Glenn Morton article) is a an example of fauna that continuously made burrows but didn't want to be burried.
You are still doing a pretty good imitation.
Well then perhaps you would argue that it is non-science to research non-paradigms. I think that you misunderstand where scientists do science and where scientists make value judgements.
When all their errors are corrected I predict you will find that there is
nothing left but a 4.5 billion year old earth with no global flood.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Whatever my conclusion--I know it will be logically determined and compatible with data.
I seem to recall that there was a time when you believed all of them. Of course you were very young then. At least you are far too educated for Hovind and Brown and some of the AiG and ICR stuff by now. Have you gone from being a YEC to a MAEC? (Middle Aged Earth Creationist?)
Hah. Possibly. Perhaps the earth is about 4.0 Ga, where the last 550 My of geologic history was catastrophic. lol. I am undecided and I think that it is not the business of scientists as scientists to
believe the hypotheses they research.
-Chris Grose