Frumious Bandersnatch said:
Have you read the CPT papers? They explicitly state that the pupose is to provide a mechanism for the Genesis flood.
Of course they are. Thats what CPT is, an attempt to explain observations. An explanation for observations implies a hypothesis. Hypotheses which attempt to convey dynamic systems require mechanisms.
They are not trying to explain observations of the world. They are trying to provide scientific justification for the myth they believe.
Motivation for investigation does not imply truth or falsity. I agree that the majority of the so-called "creation scientists" methods of attemptedly scientific analysis is skewed and flawed, but this does not bare on the truth or falsity of the hypotheses considered. The scientist, as a scientist, should not be effected. However the scientist as a human is effected because basically what they are doing is trying to support an event that is presented as historically accurate by accepted scriptures. I have taken the alternative, scientifically competent route and look at CPT as a tentative hypothesis that will either change or be destroyed through appropriate methods of data analysis.
Baumgardner's invocation of speeded up radioactive decay is a classic example of an ad hoc hypothesis. If you don't understand that then you are the one who doesn't understand what ad hoc means.
I don't think that Baumgardner has invoked acceleraded decay. In fact, from personal conversation with Baumgardner a little over a year ago he was very critical about the hypothesis and asserted that Humphreys (and myself at the time) was trying to convince Baumgardner that it probably was the initiation event for CPT. Nevertheless what you seem to have missed is that the way CPT theory is structured it says little to nothing about the mechanisms involved in the distribution of radioisotopes throughout the earth and the implication of age. Do you understand how theories are structured? An Ad hoc hypothesis is a hypothesis which has been invoked for the sole purpose of explaining some set of known observations with no further modification of the parent hypothesis and no potential for novel prediction for the parent theory. Hypotheses are not ad hoc if the supposed 'ad hoc' hypothesis adds structure to the hypothesis and therefore is independently verifiable through subsequent hypothesis testing.
Not the false dichotomy again. I expected better of you.
Well I would expect you to understand science. I have not presented a false dichotomy. I have attempted to convey the fact that hypotheses and theories are structured in a way to explain observations relevant to the
statements of the hypothesis. Accelerated decay is a subsidiary hypothesis which may for all I know be completely false. The fact is that, based on the direct statements made by the hypothesis of CPT, its truth or falsity is not dependent on the truth or falsity of accelerated decay because accelerated decay is a subsidiary hypothesis attempting to explain observations
implied not
given by CPT. I have used Abiogenesis as an analogy. Another possible analogy could be punctuated equillibrium. The truth or falsity of evolutionary theory is not based on the truth or falsity of PE because PE merely tries to explain features implied by evolution.
Disconfirmation is not the same as falsification. Disconfirmation is merely an instance of apparent inconsistence. Falsification is where that instance of disconfirmation has been independently validated. Of course the validity of falsification can be tentative.
Do you want to tell us how you transfer heat out fast enough to make columns of water that exit the atmosphere without shock cooling. If you do keep in mind that you have to get more the 96% of the heat out by this mechanism.
I don't think you understood what I am hypothesizing. Much of the lithosphere is rapidly cooled, however sources of high temperature transport heat to these sinks and reheat them and may result in gradual recrystalization.
Since you have to get more that 96% of the heat out of both the crust and the lithosphere by blasting the ocean into space I don't think the temperature remains high enough for significant recrystalization.
Heat moves in the direction of lower temperature.....
Are you saying that the entire seafloor and lithosphere were replaced in less than a year by "localized vents"?
not entirely if you have been listening (some of the crust, no), but for the majority of the lithosphere, yes. Of course I think you are trying to simplify hydrothermal processes. It is not entirely clear to me whether hydrothermal migration to sources of heat at depth in the crust and lithosphere occurs diffusively on small scales of veins, cracks, and micro-cracks, or whether hydrothermal recharge occurs by permeating larger scale fractures.
You mean this is not happening under the ocean?
of course it is. However, unlike your understanding seems to indicate, they do not dissipate in the oceans (IMO, if you think that 1600K hydrothermal gas phase plumes will not at least buoey to the ocean surface (probably only several hundred meters at most), I want some of whatever you are smoking), but penetrate the depth of the ocean water above discharge vents.
This problem with this is that the heat will be radiated back to the earth as well as into space cooking everything on the planet.
Heat will radiate in all directions. Of course as you are not willing to admit the situation is far more complicated than you are arguing. Heat radiated to adjacent atmosphere will also radiate heat. Most of the existence of the high temperature water will be spent either very high in, or outside of the atmosphere. I know little of large scale atmospheric dynamics, but perhaps isolated convection cells in the upper atmosphere allows efficient radiation to space. The point is that you don't know and have not demonstrated that you do.
How about heat radiation? These steam jets will be blackbody radiators at thousands of degrees won't they? How about the rapid expansion of the steam into the air? How about release of the latent heat of vaporization of any steam that does condense?
Radiation probably isn't going to be a very significant method of heat transfer in the oceans or lower (and possibly upper) atmosphere considering these jets will probably move at hypersonic velocities.
You defend a model that releases enough heat to boil the oceans many times over in order to defend a fantastic mechanism to justify belief in a Bronze age myth while ignoring its multiple fatal flaws and lol at someone who actually is a scientiss.
Indeed I have laughed at several of your comments as you are someone who claims to be a scientist. Perhaps if you began to understand that belief is not the business of scientists as scientist I would be a little more silent.
Which is why the people who developed the CPT model for no other reason than to attempt to justify their belief in the global flood should not be considered scientists.
You have made similar errors as those people.. or perhaps you have bought into their fallacy and for some reason think that the motivation of scientists to do research has baring on the truth or falsity of the hypotheses they research. I have, nevertheless, considered CPT on the basis that it is indeed a scientific hypothesis and wish to develop it so that it might be better understood as a theory and make novel predictions.
Maybe it's because the title of the paper that originally presented CPT is "Runaway subduction as the driving mechanism for the Genesis Flood". It is you are are trying to avoid understanding a simple fact.
No. You still don't understand that Hypotheses are proposed to explain certain sets of data, not all sets of data. Your argument is about as dumb as the argument from common creationists regarding the link of abiogenesis with evolutionary theory. You should also understand that the truth or falsity of runaway subduction also does not imply the truth or falsify CPT. CPT is a very general hypothesis. Runaway subduction is a less general hypothesis which attempts to explain the parent hypothesis of CPT by providing it a mechanism. This mechanism for CPT can change while the statements of CPT remain the same.
The fact that it cooks the earth to death many times over is more than just an "inconsistency".
No. Actually it is less than that--it is a
potential inconsistency, one which has not been well founded. You do not know that it does cook the earth to death.. this is your speculation. if you really were a scientist that read scientific literature you probably wouldn't be saying this as if it were actually well founded!
The fact that super rapid cooling of the sea floor would lead to a different mineral composition that what is seen is more than just an inconsistency.
Are you even listening?
The fact that organisms that live attached to the supposedly subducted seafloor would be sucked down and melted rather that leaving a record of both fossils and trace fossils is more than just an inconsistency.
This would only have happened to material and organisms which had been sufficiently close to the rigid plate to move with it into the subduction zone. I am surprized that you have never heard of sedimentary accretion! Your making yourself look silly here.
These are fatal flaws in the model which you would have to see if you didn't have a relgious need to accept it, even if you still won't admit that need to yourself.
Well I am sorry if I don't embrace your pseudomethods as if they were scientific or even logical.
Plate tectonics has evidence and does not have any of the fatal flaws outlined above.
So what--it is a developed, well understood, and well researched hypothesis.
Your claim is equivalent to saying we should go back to phlogiston theory because we don't understand every detail of combustion.
Nope, it is not.
So these formed during runaway subduction leading to an ordered fossil record of sessile benthic organisms and their burrows. How did that work.
No. The order of the fossil record is not due to this, I do not know what had effected the order of the fossil record, nor is it required for my argument against yours here (that sessil bethnic organisms should not exist in the fossil record) to be valid. You know you have a problem with repositioning goalposts.
The global flood hypothesis that CPT was fantasized to justify was negated more than 150 years ago.
So much for scientific tentativity Mr. scientist. lol
How could the heat from the new lithosphere and new ocean crust be released several thousand km beneath the earth's surface? I think you are missing out on some pretty basic physics here.
......lol. The heat we are referring to here is a result of the release of gravitational potential energy from subducting lithosphere. Perhaps you should think more about what you are discussing before you post?
It certainly hasn't been established that such a process would occur.
That isn't the point and actually is not what I have argued if you had been listening. The point is that YOU have clearly asserted that it could not. You are making the mistake that I am not.
You have been talking about this for years with nothing but claims that someone, and someone who a desperate need to believe the model at that, say it can happen.
What?
While you are not exactly ignoring that data...
Well then lets stop saying this, shall we?
...you are just doing some handwaving about steam jets and recrystalization to try to sweep it under the rug.
Um no. that is how science is done. Hypotheses attempt to explain observations and hypotheses will change with new observations. This is not handwaving, this is consideration of other possible hypotheses which, if true, can explain relevant data and can subsequently be useful to the theory by making independent novel predictions.
I have already established that the only reason the model was developed was to attempt to come up with a physical mechanism for the flood.
So what? I have already established that this has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of those hypotheses.
You are the one who has come up with this fantastic ad hoc mechanism. It is your job to provide the calculations showing that it can happen.
Of course it is! I never said it wasn't. HOWEVER,
you have made the mistake of assessing this proposal by claiming that it CANNOT happen. Positive or negative statements should logically be derived. I've not made such a statement (that they can or cannot happen), only that it appears to be a promising hypothesis. Furthermore, it is hardly ad hoc. It is no more ad hoc than mantle plumes--especially plume theory as it was in the 70's. You yourself have shown that such a cooling mechanism has implications for materials in the crust and lithosphere and I have agreed. Unfortunately you carelessly go further and extrapolate a myriad of speculations.
You can look up the density of high pressure steam in any steam table. I use the one in the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. As to the equalization of steam pressures this comes out of the derivation of the speed of sound from Newton's laws. The pressure differential provides a force which accelerates the air outward. However, with the extreme pressure differentials you are hypothesisizing the speed of expansion into the atmosphere may be hypersonic, at least initially.
Perhaps. I am not quite sure. However, I guess the problem is the lack of modeling here. Of course the initial speed of the jets would have to be known as well. I have little doubt that they would be hypersonic, but I have not made such calculations. Baumgardner's calculations of the velocities achieved were probably incorrect.
But the entire floor of the that whole ocean is being sudducted in less than a year in CPT.
So what? Perhaps, I will suggest again, you need to apply your argument to something that is actually documented in geology and extrapolate from that. Morton attempted to do this.
Currently the entire seafloor is not subducted in less than a year and the evidence we have discussed shows that it never was.
No this has not been shown.
You know, I doubt CPT ever happened, but if it did and further research indicates that it may have, I am just going to laugh myself to death.
-Chris Grose