Scientific proof of flood.

[LittleNipper]

How about geologists who believe in an old earth? Are they Satan's playthings too?



No, there were plenty in mainstream science developing modern biology and modern geology.



Science doesn't allow faith, so you might want to be careful about mixing in your religion.



Maybe life started in a way that we haven't discovered yet? If I asked someone 2,000 years ago how lightning is made could they give me a scientific answer? No. Therefore Zeus did it. God-of-the-Gaps has been shown to be a poor argument for a long time since those gaps in our knowledge keep getting filled by science.



You mean variations such as chimps and humans?



You have seen the enormous list of observed speciation events, have you not?

Science is what we make it. Hey, I'm sure I'm better at some things than you are, as I'm sure that is true of you. That makes each and everyone unique. It doesn't make us another species. Everything that exists is unique. That is the characteristic of GOD and HIS CREATION reflects HIS attributes. Satan uses those he is free to use. If you are not a child of GOD then you are a child of the devil. Satan will apply those where he is allowed by GOD.

 

[duordi]

Duane, I've kept out of this thread until now, but I assure you I have an open mind. I haven't participated in this thread because I don't feel qualified to argue geology although I know quite a bit about the subject (I'm an avid amateur paleontologist). Although I'm a pretty staunch evolutionist and old-earth believer, my beliefs are based on the evidence and logical conclusions from the evidence. Am I open to the idea that a global flood occurred? Yes, but it would take more evidence than just one anomolous geologic feature to convince me. Doesn't this make sense to you? The evidence for an old earth and that there was no global flood is OVERWHELMING at this point. It's not a question of an open mind -- it's a question of the evidence.

Futz (still wondering why God couldn't get those 4400 genera of Brachiopoda right the first time...)

I am glad you have an open mind as do I.

When Einstein developed the theory of relativity he did not say Newton theory was giving extremely large errors.

What he did say was that new information suggests that the speed of light is the universal constant.

While time and space must distort to maintain this constant speed of light requirement.

This is not an intuitive suggestion.

The determination of the validity of Einstein’s theory required an open minded individual to dare to make the assumption that light speed was constant and follow the logical process through to conclusion.

Then predictions of his theory had to be tested to determine if indeed they predicted reality.

Newtonian theory could not be applied to Einstein’s assumptions and Einstein’s theory could not be applied to Newton’s assumptions.

Each theory had to be allowed to progress to conclusion.

Each theory also provides very close to identical results only in extreme conditions did the two theories differ enough to measure.

Now those who used Newton’s theory had gathered much evidence that the theory worked and indeed their faith was not blind faith because they had found it to work by trial.

They were therefore reluctant to consider an idea which replaced the entire Newtonian theory foundation just to correct a "few" inconsistences.

They would have preferred to have corrected the inconsistencies by slight modifications to the Newtonian theory extremities.

In this true story there are several opinions and they all have logical and thought out reasons for what they believe to be the best way to proceed.

It is possible that a catastrophic theory will have an advantage or it may not, but to know for sure it must be allowed to progress to completion.

It make take several of us who are willing to complete this process.

Are you willing?

Duane

 

[futzman]

It is possible that a catastrophic theory will have an advantage or it may not, but to know for sure it must be allowed to progress to completion.

It make take several of us who are willing to complete this process.

Are you willing?

Duane

Am I willing to look at the evidence and its fit to a catastrophic theory? Of course. I'm a field amateur paleontologist and look at geologic formations all the time and try to determine how they were formed. I find evidence of catastrophes in practically every sedimentary formation I look at, but not a single, global one. But I'm open to new interpretations of course. If the evidence fits, we must not acquit

Futz

 

[notto]

Each theory also provides very close to identical results only in extreme conditions did the two theories differ enough to measure.

Now those who used Newton’s theory had gathered much evidence that the theory worked and indeed their faith was not blind faith because they had found it to work by trial.

The only problem with your analogy is that while relativity explained new evidence, it still explained the old evidence as well.

Until your model can explain the differences in the ages of the meteor impacts (or come up with an alternative and valid explanation of the differences we see when we subject them to independent dating techniques), you model is not a better one because it does not explain all of the evidence.

Unlike Einstein, you are ignoring evidence that is already there. You must explain it, not hand wave it away (which is exactly what you have done).

We already have a valid explanation of the meteor impacts that explains all the evidence. You are only trying to come up with an alternative because of your religious beliefs, not because of the evidence. Comparing that to Newton/Einstein is simply a poor analogy.

 

[TrueCreation]

Perhaps it is "underdeveloped because it is absurd".

No. Please reread what I said. All hypotheses go through this phase. However, because of the generality of CPT requires far more research and development before the hypothesis might exit this phase.

The heat released by CPT is more than an inconsistency. It is a fatal (pun intended) flaw and not the only one. CPT is not really a scientific hypothesis but a geological fantasy developed to try to support a religious belief in a Bronze Age myth.

CPT is a scientific hypothesis. Can you logically determine otherwise? You have never done this and I would be very surprised if you could. You have never even explained how you logically deduce falsification which tends to lead me to question your methods of scientific reasoning.

How does hydrothermal cooling not heat the water sterilizing the oceans?

Because the mechanism of hydrothermal cooling is shock hydrodynamic two phase. I know you have heard of the hypothesis of steam jets. It is unclear exactly how effective they would be, but--by my understanding--as a fundamental principle they are almost certain to have occured.

Which is why I argue that the super rapid cooling required by CPT would lead to primarily glassy rocks.

I know this is why you argued this.

The best explaination is the CPT didn't happen.

Best explanations are tentative.

At least you have honestly characterized your thoughts. You no longer admit to being a YEC but "jumbled mess" is a good general characterization of YEC as well.

Indeed. However I intend to organize and develop some of its hypotheses.

With rapidity of cooling required I would think that volcanic glass would be the main product.

It would probably be the main product near the vincinity of fractures where rigorous cooling is takes place. I have suggested that conduction through the spaces between hydrothermal conduits and veins would reheat and potentially recrystalize over time. What I have realized recently is that the mechanism of rigorous hydrothermal cooling will be relatively localized to major fractures and veins beyond the depth of the crust.

Consider this. Hurricanes are powered by heat from the sun warming ocean water. We have a bad hurricane season when water surface temperatures are higher than normal. The entire earth receives about 5 x 10^24 J from the sun in a year. CPT release more than 2000 times that much energy directly into the oceans.

How much of that is received into the oceans? You have only speculated on this and even then all you've said is basically 'I don't know, but you only need this much!' Which doesn't really establish anything.

There are going to be some pretty massive steam driven hurricanes before the oceans boil away. Will the ark be destroyed by a hyper hurricane or a massive cyclonic current before it is parboiled? That is the question, but dead is dead.[/quote]
dead has not been determined beyond speculation. Many of your core assumptions have been completely unmodeled--many of them even lack basic equations of support that do not fail from the existance of speculative auxiliary assumptions.

Then the Bible is not literally true when it says all animals were killed and that the water prevailed 15 cubits over the mountains. If you are going to admit this why not just admit a local flood and get rid of all the geological problems?

I never said the bible was literally true. I am trying to determine the correct answer, not the simplest answer.

And yet we see insect nests in many paleosols. Did they swim back in from somewhere and build new nests?

This depends on so many variables. For this reason it is best that we consider particular formations and and so I will address the Haymond formation later in this post.

There is no realistic depiction of CPT that is consistent with the world we see today.

No theory has perfect consistency with the data. If this were not true, science would have no need for tentativity. I've already explained the status of the CPT hypothesis as a hypothesis in my last longer post so I don't know why you are making this statement anyways.

You mean this page. Have you really thought about the implications of the Haymond for a global flood?

Its been a while, but yes I have. I recall there being a lot wrong with Morton's logic.

Here is a quote.

1. It is obvious that the burrowers prefer to burrow into the shale rather the sand.

2. The burrows in the shale were present when the sand was deposited. Why? because the sand filled the hole (burrow).

3. There were few burrows in the sand as there are no fingers of shale poking down into the sand as there are sand fingers poking down into the shale.

Lets try to explain this in a one year flood. Give each shale layer 1 day for recolonization of burrowers the deposit would require 41 years to be deposited. But that is a real problem. The Haymond bed is 1300 m thick and only represents a small part of the entire geologic column. All the fossiliferous sediments in this area are 5000 m in thickness. To do the entire column in one year requires 1300/5000*365=95 days for the time over which the Haymond must be deposited. This means that 157 sand/shale couplets per day must be deposited. That means that the burrowers must repopulate the shale 157 times per day, dig holes, be buried, then survive the burial to dig again another 156 times that day. Shoot, Sisyphus only had to roll the boulder uphill once a day. What on earth did these burrowers do to deserve this young-earth fate?
YEC's alway founder when trying to explain data like these. There attempts to fit modern science with an ancient myth are doomed to failure.

There are several major holes in Morton's presentation. It is actually quite sloppy, IMO. I don't think he explained the geologic setting very well, While he says that they were Pennsylvanian, he does give any ages for the oldest and/or youngest beds. First he says that deposition would constitute approximately 30 days of time from the timescale of catastrophic geology, but later considers 95 days. He does not identify what species is responsible for the burrows, which is probably the biggest caveat of Morton's argument. We do not know what percentage of the burrowing species are found in the sandstones and shales or still in burrows. He argues that there should be a rim of material around the opening of the burrows if they had escaped, but of course this rim would not have maintained its topography in the wake of a turbid flow.

And somehow he concludes that, "This is an indication of lots of time between the deposition of the sand and the digging of the burrows."

This conclusion has not been well supported.

While you claim to not be a YEC you are still providing a pretty good imitation.

I guess you don't understand that belief is not the business of scientists as scientists.

-Chris Grose

 

[TrueCreation]

Continental drift at currently observed rates releases the heat and gases slowly enough that it is not a problem.

So what? It had no mechanism. As research progressed a mechanism was realized. As research progresses perhaps it will be revealed that your 'sterilized earth' is not implicit.

While I mentioned this 10^28 J of gravitational energy

There was no need to mention it.

I based my conclusions on the 10^28 Joules from cooling and solidifying the crust and the 3x10^28 J from the cooling and soldifying the lithosphere and not this energy though some would probably be released on the surface.

Yes and the surface of the earth is also heated from the radiation of many of our galaxies stars. It just isn't significant.

Do you think the heat from cooling and soldifying the crust would not have heated the oceans? If not where did it go? You are the one calling for cooling by hydrothermal circulation. Are you going to try to tell us that doesn't heat the water? The 10^28 J from the crust is enough to boil all the oceans 3 times over without any contribution from the gravitational potential energy or the lithosphere.

I think that some of the pre-CPT oceans water was heated somewhat, although I presume that only a very small percentage of the heat was ultimately absorbed by the ambient ocean. But I do not know by how much--10%, 2%, .001%. But you seem to know and I have argued that there is little reason for you to think you have.

Now that's a low blow.

I thought it was acceptable rhetoric as you have made assertions like "While you claim to not be a YEC you are still providing a pretty good imitation."

It's hardly speculation that cooling the new ocean crust will heat the oceans and the oceans transfer heat to the air through latent heat of evaporation.

Considering the proposed mechanism of two phase high velocity vertical jets, this speculation is called into question. I have no doubt that they would contribute significant heat to ocean water and atmosphere, but exactly how much? Keep in mind that heat is removed from cooling lithosphere both from existential temperature and kinetic potential by virtue of the velocity of the jets.

Would you like to tell us where all this heat went otherwise?

If the steam organizes into buoyant vertical jets to significant height much it may be ejected at high velocity outside of the atmosphere.

Of course CPT has a few other fatal flaws as well as well as the heat. For example we talked about burrowing animals. Some of these animals burrowed into the seafloor.

Why is this problematic?

There is also an extensive and ordered fossil record of sessile benthic marine organisms. That is organisms that lived fixed to the sea floor and got buried in place. If I read Baumgardner right the entire sea floor gets subducted in CPT. All these animals and their burrows should have been sucked right down and not buried.

So these organisms cannot be passively redistributed on the ocean floor?

How is there a fossil record of sea floor dwellers and sea floor burrowers if the sea floor was catastrophically subducted during the flood?

I would guess that this fossil record is exhibited in seafloor sediments. Organisms will be preserved in sediments as sediment is deposited and subsequently perturbed by organisms and organisms are burried by such sediments. I am not seeing the issue here.

-Chris Grose

 

[TrueCreation]

I'm not sure what planet you're on, but on this planet scientists don't blindly believe in a 4.5 billion year old Earth and no global flood. Scientists, or at least 99.9% of them agree with it because the evidence is so overwhelming for it.

Where in the world do these creationists even get the idea that there's even a debate over this? In mainstream science there hasn't been a debate over evolution for 100 years. There hasn't been a debate over whether or not a global flood happened for over 200 years - and yes the conclusion was no.

Science isn't about belief - especially when evidence overwhelmingly points to certain things.

I don't see anything here that directly conflicts what I considered.

-Chris Grose

 

[TrueCreation]

And there you have it. The bane of Creationism is that it bases models on pre-conceived ideas instead of what evidence is actually out there.

In fact the current ideas of science were formed from scratch based on what the evidence showed - and it wasn't the other way around.

Science progresses both by induction and conjecture. Also, you seem to be tossing around the word 'evidence' quite brashly. What do you think constitutes "evidence"?

-Chris Grose

 

[TrueCreation]

The geology of the Hawaiian Islands directly falsifies your model. The evidence we have by looking at the Hawaiian islands cannot exist in your model. That is why your model is rejected by scientists and geologists. When evaluated as a way to explain the evidence, it fails.

and:

See, right there it shows that you are not familiar with the Hawaiin Island geology. They could not form in a day because in order to build up as they did, the material needs to cool so that more material can build upon it. The evidence also shows us that they built up over time with the islands on one side of the chain being built up and eroded long before the current above water islands. Again, and examination of the evidence leads to the conclusion that the islands are old. The conclusion supports the evidence.

The pattern of erosion of the island chain and the fact that there are no water deposited sediments on top of them rule out out the flood as well.

Well I don't think the Hawaiian island chain formed within a day. Also what indicates that the the older islands had been eroded prior to the formation of the the youngest island?

I don't see how "the pattern of erosion of the island chain and the fact that there are no water deposited sediments on top of them" rule out CPT.

-Chris Grose

 

[notto]

and:

[/font]

Well I don't think the Hawaiian island chain formed within a day. Also what indicates that the the older islands had been eroded prior to the formation of the the youngest island?

I don't see how "the pattern of erosion of the island chain and the fact that there are no water deposited sediments on top of them" rule out CPT.

-Chris Grose

If you look at the erosion of the chain, the oldest islands as dated by standard dating have eroded to the water line with the youngest islands still being built from the source of new material.

The independent lines of evidence from dating to erosion show us a fairly good picture of the timeline and mechanisms that created the hawaiin islands.

CPT is not one that explains all of the evidence.

How does CPT explain this?

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/HCV/haw_formation.html

Notice the first picture.

CPT doesn't present a model of island BUILDING that is needed to actually build the hawaiin island chain. It also doesnt present a model of island erosion or plate movement that matches the profile we see there.

You are starting with a preposition. If you would let the evidence lead you to your conclusion, you will find that it cannot explain the hawaiian islands better than the current mainstream model.

It doesn't explain why the 4 independent lines of evidence that we use to figure out the appoximate dating of the islands and pattern of formation all agree, these being

1) standard dating techniques
2) current movement rate of the plates
3) Erosion patterns of the islands down to the water level
4) That the water level has not changed as this erosion happened.
5) That there is no sediment on the islands from any catastrophy.

That all of these lines of evidence match to form a compresensive theory as to the formation of the islands is strong evidence that the model is correct. CPT's failure to address all of them (not to mention the other problems that have been pointed out to you related to your model) are an indication that the CPT model is NOT correct.

 

[nvxplorer]

What do you think constitutes "evidence"?

Genesis?

 

[TrueCreation]

If you look at the erosion of the chain, the oldest islands as dated by standard dating have eroded to the water line with the youngest islands still being built from the source of new material.

The independent lines of evidence from dating to erosion show us a fairly good picture of the timeline and mechanisms that created the hawaiin islands.

CPT is not one that explains all of the evidence.

How does CPT explain this?

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/HCV/haw_formation.html

Notice the first picture.

CPT doesn't present a model of island BUILDING that is needed to actually build the hawaiin island chain. It also doesnt present a model of island erosion or plate movement that matches the profile we see there.

You are starting with a preposition. If you would let the evidence lead you to your conclusion, you will find that it cannot explain the hawaiian islands better than the current mainstream model.

It doesn't explain why the 4 independent lines of evidence that we use to figure out the appoximate dating of the islands and pattern of formation all agree, these being

1) standard dating techniques
2) current movement rate of the plates
3) Erosion patterns of the islands down to the water level
4) That the water level has not changed as this erosion happened.
5) That there is no sediment on the islands from any catastrophy.

That all of these lines of evidence match to form a compresensive theory as to the formation of the islands is strong evidence that the model is correct. CPT's failure to address all of them (not to mention the other problems that have been pointed out to you related to your model) are an indication that the CPT model is NOT correct.

A catastrophic plate tectonics model for the formation of seamounts is not difficult to envision. Seamounts, guyots, and island chains are the result of isolated loci of extrusive volcanism. Current consensus supposes that island chains are a direct product of hot spots beneath the lithosphere, however there is a growing consideration of other hypotheses. As the virtue of simplicity in scientific research programs is rather favored it is preferred that there would only be one correct answer to the origin of such instances if local volcanism. IMO, history has shown that the best explanation is probably the combination of competing paradigms. While I think that this may be accurate, I am not going to advocate either answer as correct, but this topic is actively debated in geodynamics today. I think that CPT could potentially unify our understanding of local extrusive volcanism known to produce ocean island chains.

CPT could explain several unobserved expectations associated with the Hawaiian chain. Because conduction is a fair method of observable heat transport on geologic time scales and distance scales of the thickness of the thermal oceanic lithosphere, if the Hawaiian chain were the result of a thermal plume head, anomalously high heat flow would be predicted. This heat flow anomaly is not observed. As noted, because of the timescales involved with typical PT theory, the lack of a heat flow anomaly tends to disconfirm the existance of a hot spot origin. However because of the timescales associated with CPT, a significant heat flow anomaly may not be expected at the surface.

Perhaps CPT can also better explain the variable change in the rate of volcanism over the period of the formation of the chain. As the catastrophic regime of plate tectonics came to an end it might be expected that the higher rate of hot spot volcanism would continue for a brief period, adding mass to the large island.

http://www.mantleplumes.org/images/HawaiiMagRate_500.gif

I know that CPT is not free of problems in the explanation of observations associated with local ocean volcanism, island chains, seamounts, and guyots. Mainstream hypotheses still require development as well to eliminate various inconsistencies, although collectively they may be less abundant or significant. However I do think that CPT can do a considerable job even in its current rather undeveloped state as a hypothesis.

Such volcanism and the formation of seamounts and ocean island chains is explained rather well within CPT as it is in PT. The real topic of debate for CPT is the geomorphological evolution of seamount summits and the origin of guyots.

Their characteristic summit geomorphology consists of a rim of reef facies enclosing layered lagoonal facies with a pelagic cover above an eroded volcanic basement. I have long considered it a vexing mystery and admitted that it is impossible to envision a period of gradual erosion, subsequent atoll formation and pelagic sedimentation. However I recently have formulated and considered a possible solution.

Classical interpretation hypothesizes that seamounts build to exceed sea level and when volcanism deactivates it rides on the underlying plate and subsides gradually with age due to conductive cooling and thickening of the underlying lithosphere.

I have been entertaining different ideas regarding possible processes of heat transfer in the oceanic lithosphere during an event like CPT and had focused my attention on the process of propogating fracturing in the crust and deep lithosphere. I think there are at least two probable mechanisms for fracturing available, corresponding to large-scale and smaller fracturing 'events'. Those mechanisms being tensile stresses on the lithosphere (from fundamental plate motion mechanisms such a basal tractions and slab pull, (consider studies of the lithospheric stress field by Lithgow-Bertelloni and Guynn, 2004) and faulting due to the spherical geometry on which tectonics operates (eg. transformational faulting)) and instantaneous volumetric thermal contraction from hydorthermal penetration (perhaps a combination of both).

Now, considering the mechanism of fracturing, I have thought that large stress-related faulting and fracturing of the crust would occur on a frequency on the order of 10-200+ km on the ocean floor--fracture zones may constitute the largest sinks of rigorous hydrothermal cooling (or not--I have not directly confirmed this hypothesis). If we consider, as I have, that these instances of faulting in the ocean floor are the loci where lithospheric cooling take place, it would be at these large fractures that cooling would take place and thus where the oceanic lithosphere would thicken and cause ocean floor to subside. Adjacent to faults oceanic lithosphere would be relatively thinner, or at least much warmer. These initial thermal variations in the oceanic lithosphere would of course effect surface bathymetry.

Of course, seamounts formed on top of warm lithosphere would have a greater chance to exceed the height of sea level from the ocean floor. Subsequently, conductive heat transfer and further (less active) hydrothermal circulation in the thermally heterogenous lithosphere would bring it towards a thermal equilibrium and isotherms would have less extreme vertical variation (causing present lithospheric thickness and bathymetry to be near-parabolic with distance/age from the ridge). As in conventional theory, seamounts would ride on the ocean floor and subside, however not as a direct result of the age of underlying lithosphere (albeit, presumably over timescales of (presumably) thousands of years).

This makes it much easier to account for seamount wave erosion, atoll growth, lagoonal facies, and post-subsidance pelagic cover.

An illustrative diagram of the thermal Evolution of a fracture from progressive increase in penetration depth:
http://www.veracitystudios.com/other/lithosphere_fracture_thermal.gif

Bathymetry and lithospheric thickness (defined by an isotherm):
http://www.veracitystudios.com/other/lithosphere_thermalequilibrium.gif

Possible evolution of a cool fracture post-CPT:
http://www.veracitystudios.com/other/fracture_isothermal_evolution.gif


Clearly there is a lot of uncertainty in the processes involved in how I have
(and haven't) described them and how the mechanisms might operate. And although inconsistencies are sure to remain, I think that further research here could yield interesting results.

Lithgow-Bertelloni, C., and J. H. Guynn (2004), Origin of the lithospheric stress field, J. Geophys. Res., 109.

-Chris Grose

 

[TrueCreation]

Genesis?

I hope Valkhorn has a better explanation.

-Chris Grose

 

[Valkhorn]

I hope Valkhorn has a better explanation.

Explaination of what?

All you post is conjecture without anything to back it up. You see, there's a fatal flaw in logic to try and make an assumption, and make assumptions based on that assumption without verifying the facts.

You see it's like this. Say you have a house of logic:

L
O O
G G
I I
C C
---------------
assumption4
assumption3
assumption2
assumption1
---------------

Well, you can see that the house's foundation is practically 'assumption1'.

But what happens when you don't verify assumption1?

lgo
-amsg-ci--

The house falls. You get a pile of rubble.

Now, mister True, your problem is not only with that, but it also lies with presuppositioning everything. Honestly, and this is a very important question -

What's the point in seeking questions
when you start with an answer?
​

You simply cannot form a logical argument like this:

• CONCLUSION
• Therefore Premise 1
• Therefore Premise 2

In fact, if you've ever gone through a course in logic you'd know what I'm talking about. The proper form of an argument, or even with scientific study is the following:

1. Find what evidence exists
2. Find what hypotheses can explain evidence
3. Find more evidence
4. If evidence doesn't support 2, go back to 2 and rewrite/change hypothesis
5. If hypothesis can predict what evidence will be found and is testable
6. It will eventually become scientific theory

First of all, with your name as Truth in there I gather you're arguing for Creationism, but the problem with that is that it is highly illogical and unscientific. Again here is the creationist method:

1. Start with the conclusion
2. Find evidence
3. If evidence doesn't fit 1, change evidence or ignore it
4. If conclusion cannot be supported, make up evidence or lousy arguments to support it

Actually, try to make a logical argument out of ANYTHING which starts with a conclusion first. You will not be able to do it.

And, before you claim that science starts with conclusions, it really does not. Please keep tabs of this IMPORTANT concept:

Science does not start with a conclusion. Science starts with the work of previous scientists, which can be traced back to previous scientists and so on. They showed their work.

Now that was completely beating around the bush but I didn't see any point to comment on your claims because so far you haven't given any basis or support for any of them. And, rather than ask you as nauseum for support with statements we know you can't back up, I thought it'd be easier to show you the errors in your logic.

Hope this helps.​

Edit: The house looks more like a lint roller, but you get the idea.

 

[Valkhorn]

An illustrative diagram of the thermal Evolution of a fracture from progressive increase in penetration depth:
http://www.veracitystudios.com/other/lithosphere_fracture_thermal.gif

Bathymetry and lithospheric thickness (defined by an isotherm):
http://www.veracitystudios.com/other/lithosphere_thermalequilibrium.gif

Possible evolution of a cool fracture post-CPT:
http://www.veracitystudios.com/other/fracture_isothermal_evolution.gif

By the way those graphs are completely useles... No units are shown, there is no legend, and basically I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here.
http://www.veracitystudios.com/other/fracture_isothermal_evolution.gif

 

[Valkhorn]

I have been entertaining different ideas regarding possible processes of heat transfer in the oceanic lithosphere during an event like CPT and had focused my attention on the process of propogating fracturing in the crust and deep lithosphere. I think there are at least two probable mechanisms for fracturing available, corresponding to large-scale and smaller fracturing 'events'. Those mechanisms being tensile stresses on the lithosphere (from fundamental plate motion mechanisms such a basal tractions and slab pull, (consider studies of the lithospheric stress field by Lithgow-Bertelloni and Guynn, 2004) and faulting due to the spherical geometry on which tectonics operates (eg. transformational faulting)) and instantaneous volumetric thermal contraction from hydorthermal penetration (perhaps a combination of both).

Now, considering the mechanism of fracturing, I have thought that large stress-related faulting and fracturing of the crust would occur on a frequency on the order of 10-200+ km on the ocean floor--fracture zones may constitute the largest sinks of rigorous hydrothermal cooling (or not--I have not directly confirmed this hypothesis). If we consider, as I have, that these instances of faulting in the ocean floor are the loci where lithospheric cooling take place, it would be at these large fractures that cooling would take place and thus where the oceanic lithosphere would thicken and cause ocean floor to subside. Adjacent to faults oceanic lithosphere would be relatively thinner, or at least much warmer. These initial thermal variations in the oceanic lithosphere would of course effect surface bathymetry.

Of course, seamounts formed on top of warm lithosphere would have a greater chance to exceed the height of sea level from the ocean floor. Subsequently, conductive heat transfer and further (less active) hydrothermal circulation in the thermally heterogenous lithosphere would bring it towards a thermal equilibrium and isotherms would have less extreme vertical variation (causing present lithospheric thickness and bathymetry to be near-parabolic with distance/age from the ridge). As in conventional theory, seamounts would ride on the ocean floor and subside, however not as a direct result of the age of underlying lithosphere (albeit, presumably over timescales of (presumably) thousands of years).

You do realize that these claims would require EXTRORDINARY amounts of math to back up. You'd have to support them with hard numbers, and you'd have to show your work.

These claims would require a lot of calculation which I doubt you're up to.

What a pity geologists, physicists and siesmologists have already completed PLENTY of work into these ideas in published peer reviewed journals. They showed their work, it's already there, and I don't have a clue what you're trying to do here other than desparately grasp at straws while trying to sound intelligent.

Creationism is an emporer without any clothes. It was falsified 200 years ago. And yes they showed their work.

 

[notto]

This makes it much easier to account for seamount wave erosion, atoll growth, lagoonal facies, and post-subsidance pelagic cover.

I don't see how. Maybe you need to dumb it down for me. How does CPT explain specifically the five lines of evidence.

1) the dates we get with independent standard dating techniques
2) current location of islands matches current movement rate of the plates over millions of years.
3) Erosion patterns of the islands down to the water level with the oldes islands being the most eroded
4) That the water level has not changed as this erosion happened.
5) That there is no sediment on the islands from any catastrophy.

 

[duordi]

The only problem with your analogy is that while relativity explained new evidence, it still explained the old evidence as well.

You are correct, it must explain the old evidence as well, but only the old evidence not the old theory.

Until your model can explain the differences in the ages of the meteor impacts (or come up with an alternative and valid explanation of the differences we see when we subject them to independent dating techniques), you model is not a better one because it does not explain all of the evidence.

You are correct again.

I choose the ("or come up with an alternative and valid explanation of the differences we see when we subject them to independent dating techniques") option.

Unlike Einstein, you are ignoring evidence that is already there. You must explain it, not hand wave it away (which is exactly what you have done).

On this point you underestimated me, as we have not had a chance to discuss the dating systems used.

I prefer to be considered "not guilty" at least until after the trial you intend for me.

We already have a valid explanation of the meteor impacts that explains all the evidence.

And no other possibilities are to be considered?

Come now notto you do not really believe this.

You are only trying to come up with an alternative because of your religious beliefs, not because of the evidence.

Notto, you place such a severe judgement on my personal motives.

Do you really think I am so shallow and simple minded as your statement indicates.

If that is so please reconsider, as I have found underestimating an opponent in a debate is unwise.

Comparing that to Newton/Einstein is simply a poor analogy.

Well I did choose an analogy which would vindicate my position as it was necessary to make the point I wished to make.

Surely you are not saying that I must only argue your side in this debate?

What fun would come of that?

Have a nice day.

Duane

 

[TrueCreation]

Explaination of what?

All you post is conjecture without anything to back it up.

All I asked you was to explain what you think constitutes "evidence"?

You see, there's a fatal flaw in logic to try and make an assumption, and make assumptions based on that assumption without verifying the facts.

You see it's like this. Say you have a house of logic:

L



O O
G G
I I
C C
---------------
assumption4
assumption3
assumption2
assumption1
---------------

Well, you can see that the house's foundation is practically 'assumption1'.

But what happens when you don't verify assumption1?

​

lgo​

-amsg-ci--​

The house falls. You get a pile of rubble.


Now, mister True, your problem is not only with that, but it also lies with presuppositioning everything. Honestly, and this is a very important question -

​

What's the point in seeking questions ​

​

when you start with an answer?

You simply cannot form a logical argument like this:

• CONCLUSION
• Therefore Premise 1
• Therefore Premise 2

In fact, if you've ever gone through a course in logic you'd know what I'm talking about. The proper form of an argument, or even with scientific study is the following:

1. Find what evidence exists​
2. Find what hypotheses can explain evidence​
3. Find more evidence​
4. If evidence doesn't support 2, go back to 2 and rewrite/change hypothesis​
5. If hypothesis can predict what evidence will be found and is testable​
6. It will eventually become scientific theory​

First of all, with your name as Truth in there I gather you're arguing for Creationism, but the problem with that is that it is highly illogical and unscientific. Again here is the creationist method:​

1. Start with the conclusion​
2. Find evidence​
3. If evidence doesn't fit 1, change evidence or ignore it​
4. If conclusion cannot be supported, make up evidence or lousy arguments to support it​

Actually, try to make a logical argument out of ANYTHING which starts with a conclusion first. You will not be able to do it.​

And, before you claim that science starts with conclusions, it really does not. Please keep tabs of this IMPORTANT concept:

Science does not start with a conclusion. Science starts with the work of previous scientists, which can be traced back to previous scientists and so on. They showed their work.​

Now that was completely beating around the bush but I didn't see any point to comment on your claims because so far you haven't given any basis or support for any of them. And, rather than ask you as nauseum for support with statements we know you can't back up, I thought it'd be easier to show you the errors in your logic.​

Hope this helps.


​

Edit: The house looks more like a lint roller, but you get the idea.

Well, then let me show you the errors in your logic, or at least I think that it is abundantly clear that you have a very minimal understanding of my position (no I am not a creationist by any sense of the word perpetuated on this board) and how I apply scientific methods in my reasoning and determining the direction of scientific research.

You've said that I have started with a conclusion, which is simply wrong. You have also mis-stated scientific methodology by saying that science always progresses from inferences of previous work. While science tends to progress via induction it also is advanced through conjecture. Indeed, Popper would argue that induction is a complete myth, and I think he is correct to some ultimate extreme logical end. However, I think that it is clear that--practically--induction exists and is readily applied (however NOT as a rule) in scientific proceedure. Perhaps Kuhn's proposed differentiation of periods of "normal science" punctuated by episodes of scientific revolution could probably illustrate where inductive science and the consideration of (commonly elegant) conjectures most effectively impact progress in science.

Of course, there is always a period where conjecture dominates the statements given by a hypothesis. This is true because hypotheses are not proposed for the sole purpose of explaining current observations, but for the purpose of making novel predictions once the hypothesis is developed and understood.

Moreover, the first procedural step of your "proper form of an argument, or even with scientific study" is flawed. You've stated that this first "step" is to "find what evidence exists". This brings me to the reason I asked you to explain what you think constitutes scientific evidence. Evidence does not exist prior to the formulation and testing of a hypothesis. In the eloquent words of Quine and Ullian (1970, 1978), "Its Evidence is seen in its consequence". That is, the consequence of the proposal of hypotheses is hypothesis testing. Hypothesis testing determines whether a certain test implication confirms or disconfirms the hypothesis--where confirmation implies an instance of confirming (positive) evidence and disconfirmation implies disconfirming (negative) evidence.

http://www.veracitystudios.com/otherhypothesis_testing.gif

http://www.veracitystudios.com/other/theory.gif

Now, because it is only hypothesis testing which leads us to instances of evidence in favor of some hypothesis, it is not required of hypotheses to be based on induction. It is the goal of hypotheses--whether induced from some extant set of data or conjecturally derived--to be tested and "potentially falsified".

I have briefly explained the status of the hypothesis of Catastrophic Plate Tectonics as a general theoretical hypothesis early in post 892.

Furthermore, your schema of "logic" that you seem to think I have applied here is just dumb:

1. Start with the conclusion
2. Find evidence
3. If evidence doesn't fit 1, change evidence or ignore it
4. If conclusion cannot be supported, make up evidence or lousy arguments to support it

I understand the logic of applied scientific methodology and further I understand its philosophical roots quite well.

I presented a hypothesis which I actually derived and formulated inductively which you should have noticed if you read my post. I have not applied a methodology which assumes the truth of its premise(s). The hypothesis may indeed be incorrect. In the wake of disconfirming evidence, the hypothesis will either require modification or eventually be thrown out.



You continue in a second post:

You do realize that these claims would require EXTRORDINARY amounts of math to back up. You'd have to support them with hard numbers, and you'd have to show your work.

Ultimately, yes. I never said it was a fully developed theory...

these claims would require a lot of calculation which I doubt you're up to.

Of course I am, however such analyses require time--I only began musing on this hypothesis a few weeks ago. Of course the hypothesis itself would need to be developed before we can know how to perform the correct calculations with the correct parameters and variables and would require the appropriate relevant data to compare the results to.

What a pity geologists, physicists and siesmologists have already completed PLENTY of work into these ideas in published peer reviewed journals. They showed their work, it's already there, and I don't have a clue what you're trying to do here other than desparately grasp at straws while trying to sound intelligent.

I am considering alternatives.

Creationism is an emporer without any clothes. It was falsified 200 years ago. And yes they showed their work.

The hypotheses of 200 years ago may have bene falsified, but unfortuantely for your argument science is tentative.

-Chris Grose

W. V. Quine and J. S. Ullian, "Hypothesis." From The Web of Belief, 2nd ed., pp. 64-82. 1970, 1978.

 

[TrueCreation]

I don't see how. Maybe you need to dumb it down for me. How does CPT explain specifically the five lines of evidence.

1) the dates we get with independent standard dating techniques

Because radioisotopic dating is (inevitably) disputed as an (absolute) dating method I do not think it is wise to consider it an instance of disconfirmation or falsification.

2) current location of islands matches current movement rate of the plates over millions of years.

Consider the alternative theories of island chain origins within general PT theory. You have the model of hot spot plumes and another hypothesis in development, the propogation of fractures in oceanic lithosphere. The ages of the hawaiian island chain and emperor seamounts actually do not indicate a steady-state rate of plate movement. This has lead geologists and geophysicists to consider models where the plume is not fixed but moves underneath the lithosphere or non-plume models for the origin of the volcanism. What is interesting about the non-plume models for the origin of this volcanism is that there is currently no reason to think that the rate of fracture propogation and the movement of volcanism over the surface of the crust would correlate with the rate of seafloor spreading. This means that in these theories--which are indeed widely considered and are growing in popularity--this correlation is not known to be anything but a coincidence. My hypothesis is in a similar state.

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/HCV/volc_age.gif

3) Erosion patterns of the islands down to the water level with the oldes islands being the most eroded

This is what I was slightly confused about in your posts--I didn't know exactly what you were trying to argue. What you appear to be saying is that the quantity of erosion increases with age of the seamount. However this is essentially incorrect because once the island has subsided beneath sea level, the island will not be subject to wave action and, infact, may essentially 'grow' as it subsides due to atoll formation (although the volcanic basement of the seamount will continue to subside).

4) That the water level has not changed as this erosion happened.

Wave erosion is thought to occur post-CPT where there are no terribly significant eustatic fluctuations.

5) That there is no sediment on the islands from any catastrophy.

I don't know why you would expect any. I think you are referring to what I like to call "the bathtub hypothesis", from which the logic of 'well lets just see what happens when we mix some dirt in a bathtub' is acceptable. Catastrophic Plate Tectonics is immeasurably more sophisticated than this.

-Chris Grose