Which creation do creationists want us to believe took place?

[thaumaturgy]

Correct, but my point was that it doesn't go the other way 'round. By that I mean that plate tectonics can effect significantly what happens on the surface, but what happens on the surface typically has far less effect upon plate tectonics.

Indeed, I think anyone would have quite a difficult time proving that a "Flood" would dramatically affect the motion of the lithospheric plates.

Now the conformation of the Plates might explain areas flooding, but not really t'other way 'round.

If I recall Juvenissun has, on several occasions, mentioned something about mantle dehydration and rehydration, but again, I don't recall him "running the numbers" as to how that would take place in sufficient quantity and with sufficient speed to make for a Noachian Flood without simultaneously destroying the planet.

If Juvenissun would flex his "geology" muscles and show us some details to his calculations it would be interesting, but don't hope for it anytime soon.

 

[AV1611VET]

Indeed, I think anyone would have quite a difficult time proving that a "Flood" would dramatically affect the motion of the lithospheric plates.

Take a 5 x 5 board and write the letters A thru Y on them (one letter per square).

Now place the board in a plastic swimming pool and let it set for an hour.

Remove the board and explain to me why A,E,I,O, and U didn't move around like they were on Play-Doh.

Now drain the pool and take the board and slam it down so that it breaks into 25 pieces.

All you have to do now is concoct a theory as to how A is now next to R, and E is now over by M, etc., without you slamming the board in the first place --- and there's your junk tectonics in a nutshell.

No pain --- no strain ---

 

[AV1611VET]

Robert Brown's macro Brownian Motion theory of Plate Tectonics:

 

[MoonLancer]

1. Any rock formation contact would be one of such line.

I don't understand. any rock formation contact shows evidence of a flood? your going to need to be more specific.

2. http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7308626

I diden't find anything wrong with the thread. what post do you have issues with?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Take a 5 x 5 board and write the letters A thru Y on them (one letter per square).

Now place the board in a plastic swimming pool and let it set for an hour.

Remove the board and explain to me why A,E,I,O, and U didn't move around like they were on Play-Doh.

Now drain the pool and take the board and slam it down so that it breaks into 25 pieces.

All you have to do now is concoct a theory as to how A is now next to R, and E is now over by M, etc., without you slamming the board in the first place --- and there's your junk tectonics in a nutshell.

No pain --- no strain ---

What are you getting at here? I honestly don't follow this analogy at all. I'd be very interested in talking about plate tectonics, I mean like real plate tectonics. Without the analogies and kiddie pool stuff.

If you want to talk about "junk tectonics", please do so using actual geochemistry and geophysics. I think it would be ever so much more interesting.

Here's some terms to google in preparation for an actual discussion of tectonics:

• Asthenosphere
• Lithosphere
• Mohorovicic Discontinuity
• Benioff Zones
• Transform, Convergent, and Divergent Plate boundaries
• Isostatic equilibrium
• Density differences in mafic and felsic dominated lithosphere.
• Convection
• "Slab push" and "slab pull"

Thanks!

 

[thaumaturgy]

Robert Brown's macro Brownian Motion theory of Plate Tectonics:

What does this mean?

Is there something you want to discuss about plate tectonics? We can help you. There are many of us here who have geology backgrounds.

 

[MoonLancer]

AV might be suggesting that god is moving the tectonic plates via tiny little sliders. I think its a really good idea, considering their no evidence. after all if thiers no evidence, that means it could be right!

 

[thaumaturgy]

AV might be suggesting that god is moving the tectonic plates via tiny little sliders. I think its a really good idea, considering their no evidence. after all if thiers no evidence, that means it could be right!

My gosh you're RIGHT! If there's no proof against it, it could be true! Teach the controversy!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_football

(I like the "vibrating" aspect as opposed to the dry boring ol' convection, slab push, slab pull hypotheses. Those are not as fun. So what do you think God's Electrical Bill is in order to vibrate the plates around the globe? Why don't we have non-stop earthquakes though? Maybe this hypothesis needs some work. "Keep Looking"!)

 

[AV1611VET]

Here's some terms to google in preparation for an actual discussion of tectonics:

• Asthenosphere
• Lithosphere
• Mohorovicic Discontinuity
• Benioff Zones
• Transform, Convergent, and Divergent Plate boundaries
• Isostatic equilibrium
• Density differences in mafic and felsic dominated lithosphere.
• Convection
• "Slab push" and "slab pull"

Thanks!

Oh, no, you don't --- not this boy.

What's that old saying?

• Never argue with an atheist --- he will drag you down to his level, then beat you to death with experience.

 

[tcampen]

Oh, no, you don't --- not this boy.

What's that old saying?

• Never argue with an atheist --- he will drag you down to his level, then beat you to death with experience.

It's always interesting to see someone categorize fact, evidence and objective reality in such a demeaning way.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV might be suggesting that god is moving the tectonic plates via tiny little sliders. I think its a really good idea, considering their no evidence. after all if thiers no evidence, that means it could be right!

What I'm getting at, is that plate tectonics doesn't work with Eden (a.k.a. Pangaea).

There would be no plate tectonics until God ripped this supercontinent into 5 giant ones and shoved them aside like matchsticks.

If I went out into the woods and dragged a log for 30 yards, then set the log down; and later someone notices that the log seems to be moving at the rate of 1 inch per year, he may [wrongly] conjecture that that log as been around for at least 1080 years.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's always interesting to see someone categorize fact, evidence and objective reality in such a demeaning way.

How do you categorize Truth [note the capital].

Let's see your "non-demeaning" explanation.

(Remember who you're talking to here. Any answer less than "Jesus" will probably be considered blasphemy.)

So tickle me pink with an (the) answer, and do it in such a way that I won't be able to accuse you of being "non-demeaning".

 

[juvenissun]

You have no concept of default positions, do you? You are the one making the positive claim. It is up to you, therefore, to present the evidence and show why it is evidence for what you state.


Well, I'm having a difficult time looking up more specific information for how geologists identify floods, as all of my Google searches are dominated by attempts to promote/rebut flood geology. However, it is clear that there would be two general features to a flood: erosion and deposition. At the very least there must be evidence of these two things occurring for there to be evidence of a flood.

I don't care what is the default position. We are talking about science. If you have nothing more to say, then you listen to me until you can say something else.

You could not find it because there is none. I could not find it either. That is why I say it is barking up on the wrong tree to look for (old) sediments that characterize flood. There is no such thing.

 

[tcampen]

What I'm getting at, is that plate tectonics doesn't work with Eden (a.k.a. Pangaea).

There would be no plate tectonics until God ripped this supercontinent into 5 giant ones and shoved them aside like matchsticks.

If I went out into the woods and dragged a log for 30 yards, then set the log down; and later someone notices that the log seems to be moving at the rate of 1 inch per year, he may [wrongly] conjecture that that log as been around for at least 1080 years.

What if someone actually observed the log move one inch per year over a flat surface (and observed it to continue to move today)? And what if it was not a log (which would decompose), but a 3 ton rock? And what if their was an observed mechanism for moving the rock at that rate and direction, and no observed mechanism to do otherwise? And there was a clear space missing in a large rock 30 yards away that the moving rock would fit very well in? And there was a path from the larger rock to the moving rock that was appropriately eroded the closer it got to the larger rock?

Given all this, would it still reasonable be reasonable to believe you personally dragged the rock 30 yards through the woods a week earlier?

You see, if you're going to use an analogy, it helps to have the analogy at least be remotely similar to the actual subject matter to be effective.

 

[juvenissun]

Correct, but my point was that it doesn't go the other way 'round. By that I mean that plate tectonics can effect significantly what happens on the surface, but what happens on the surface typically has far less effect upon plate tectonics.

Example: without the hydrological cycle, then there will be no plate tectonics.

You could not separate the two.

 

[AV1611VET]

What if someone actually observed the log move one inch per year over a flat surface (and observed it to continue to move today)? And what if it was not a log (which would decompose), but a 3 ton rock?

Okay --- sorry --- I stopped right here.

Can you answer my question as I wrote it?

(That's actually rude, TC.)

 

[juvenissun]

What if someone actually observed the log move one inch per year over a flat surface (and observed it to continue to move today)? And what if it was not a log (which would decompose), but a 3 ton rock? And what if their was an observed mechanism for moving the rock at that rate and direction, and no observed mechanism to do otherwise? And there was a clear space missing in a large rock 30 yards away that the moving rock would fit very well in? And there was a path from the larger rock to the moving rock that was appropriately eroded the closer it got to the larger rock?

Given all this, would it still reasonable be reasonable to believe you personally dragged the rock 30 yards through the woods a week earlier?

You see, if you're going to use an analogy, it helps to have the analogy at least be remotely similar to the actual subject matter to be effective.

Just for fun. What you say about the moving speed of this one:

 

[Chalnoth]

I don't care what is the default position. We are talking about science. If you have nothing more to say, then you listen to me until you can say something else.

And yet you don't seem to be saying much of anything.

You could not find it because there is none. I could not find it either. That is why I say it is barking up on the wrong tree to look for (old) sediments that characterize flood. There is no such thing.

Right, because it never happened.

 

[Chalnoth]

Example: without the hydrological cycle, then there will be no plate tectonics.

You could not separate the two.

Huh!? How!?

 

[Washington]

without the hydrological cycle, then there will be no plate tectonics.

????? Just how are plate tectonics dependant on the hydrological cycle?

You could not separate the two.

Why not?