|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,455 Year: 3,712/9,624 Month: 583/974 Week: 196/276 Day: 36/34 Hour: 2/14 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (for TC and Sylas) | |||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1728 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Absolutely. I have a hard time with this too; I'm just guessing since no YECs are here to support Baumgardner. Every time he seems to answer a question, a dozen more crop up. I can only surmise that the new crust should be Paleozoic and that he would say that the sedimentary section was emplaced before it was uplifted. Why some is uplifted and other parts subside is not made clear by Baumgardner.
quote: It doesn't. Even if you accepted the point, it explains nothing. Maybe there's a better explanation in there somewhere (heh heh, riiiiiight!).
quote: Just guessing again, but I suppose the terrestrial life 'ran to higher ground'. Of course, then you have the problem of plants... This all goes to show that the Baumgardner model makes absolutely no sense at all. Maybe some YEC out there can explain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IrishRockhound Member (Idle past 4458 days) Posts: 569 From: Ireland Joined: |
So he has nothing even vaguely resembling evidence for CPT? It is based entirely on a computer model, which incidently can also be used to demonstrate conventional plate tectonics?
We are faced with a simple choice - conventional plate tectonics (supported by the evidence and so far has not been falsified), and CPT (no work has been done even to see what evidence it might leave behind). It amounts to a choice between: a) hypothesis + computer model + potential falsifications + supporting evidence + predictive power and b) hypothesis + computer model The problem is that you can't entirely dismiss CPT because half of the actual work just hasn't been done - no looking for field evidence, no considerations of potential falsifications. All other problems aside, science must choose (a) because CPT is incomplete. Or I could just be talking out my ass. Thoughts? The Rock Hound
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IrishRockhound Member (Idle past 4458 days) Posts: 569 From: Ireland Joined: |
Bump
Anyone out there willing to defend Baumgardner's ideas?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Bill Birkeland Member (Idle past 2553 days) Posts: 165 From: Louisiana Joined: |
TrueCreation wrote:
"--No we havent actually observed a significantcometary impact. Technically, however, impacts would be interuptions in uniformitarian continuum. Similarily, the evolution of the oceanic lithosphere does not have a uniformitarian history. Nevertheless, geologists understand that uniformitarianism is merely a framework principle, and not to be taken dogmatically." Uniformitarian as defined by Lyell consists of four principles: 1. uniformity of law 2. uniformity of process (actualism) 3. uniformity of rate (gradualism) 4. uniformity of state (steady-statism) Darwin's theory of evolution directly contradicted Charles Lyell's principle 4. In the Tenth edition of his "Principles" in 1866, Lyell began to waver in his support of principle number 4 and by 1872, in the 11th edition of "Principles", Lyell had completely abandoned it. Thus, by 1872, Lyell had ceased to be a strict " uniformitarianist" as he originally defined it and conceded that Uniformitarian, as originally defined by all 4 principles wasn't a workable concept. Since then, the major fight has been over whether principle number 3, "uniformity of rate" (gradualism), was a valid principle. In reality, it isn't "Uniformitarian" that is being disputed by Baumgardner but rather gradualism as strict "Uniformitarian" was abandoned by geologists, including Lyell, before he died. Part of the problem is that everyone, including geologists have repeatedly conflated gradualism with "Uniformitarian" as originally defined by Lyell. However, episodic geologic processes, such as meteorite impacts, eruptions of flood basalts, periods of rapid sea floor spreading as during the Cretaceous, and so forth have shown principle of gradualism to be invalid. In fact, the recognition of mass extinctions within the geologic record refuted the application of principle no. 3, gradualism, to evolutionary processes, even before Lyell died. Charles Darwin didn't accept Uniformitarian, as strictly defined by Lyell, because Darwin disputed both uniformity of rate (no. 3) and uniformity of state (no. 4) as it applied to evolution and geology. At this point in time, the vast majority of geologists only accept 1.) uniformity of law and 2.) uniformity of process (actualism) out of Lyell's four principles of Uniformitarian. Given that conventional geologists have currently abandoned half of the principles of Uniformitarian as propose by Lyell, I find rather laughable for Baumgardner to accuse conventional geologists of being dogmatic supporters of Uniformitarian. Given that his model accepts 1.) uniformity of law and 2.) uniformity of process (actualism), it is rather hypocritical, if simply stupid on his part to beating up other geologists for accepting principles that they neither accept nor believe in. In message 4, Edge quoted Baumgardner's web site as stating: "Uniformitarianism asserts that one can correctlyinterpret the earth's past solely in terms of presently observed processes operating at near present day rates. Lyell's slogan, "the present is the key to the past," encapsulates this outlook. Of course, implicit in Lyell's dogma is that the huge amount of geological change recorded in the rocks is the product of slow processes operating over an immense span of time as opposed to a global cataclysm of the type described in the Bible and other ancient texts" In this statement, Baumgardner as many people, conflates "gradualism", which is just one of the four principles that comprises the complete definition of Lyell's "Uniformitarianism". The can be seen in the statements "...huge amount of geological change recorded in the rocks is the product of slow processes operating over an immense span of time...", which only describes gradulism, just one of the four principles of "Uniformitarianism" instead of "Uniformitarianism" as Lyell defined it. If Baumgardner would bother to talk matters with he would find that many geologists joke about "the present is the key to the past" as needing to be rephrased as "the present is the key to the Pleistocene". They are not as dogmatic as he falsely claims them to be. Also, Baumgardner apparently doesn't understand that when conventional geologists seriously discuss "the present is the key to the past", they aren't talking about principle no. 3, gradualism, rather they are referring to Lyell's principle no. 1., uniformity of law, and no. 2., uniformity of process. Again, it is hypocritical of Baumgardner to complain about it because the validity of the computer modeling that he uses in his "research" is based upon principle no. 1., uniformity of law, and no. 2., uniformity of process. In fact, Baumgardner's computer model is based on the premise that "the present is the key to the past" in terms of assuming the uniformity of physical law and processes over geologic time. If it didn't make these assumptions, he, nor anyone else, couldargue that a computer model to replicate past conditions within geologic time. A fun book to read is "Catastrophism" by Richard Huggett. Just Some thoughts Bill
|
|||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1010 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
quote:Excellent! I would love to borrow this. Do I ascribe it to you, Bill? Another great post about the annoying habit of Creationists to consistently accuse mainstream geology of practicing Lyellian Uniformitarianism. Absolutely frustrating.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Bill Birkeland Member (Idle past 2553 days) Posts: 165 From: Louisiana Joined: |
roxrkool asked:
"I would love to borrow this. Do I ascribe it to you, Bill?" Please feel free to borrow my post. Yes, also feel free to credit me. roxrkool also noted: "Another great post about the annoying habit ofCreationists to consistently accuse mainstream geology of practicing Lyellian Uniformitarianism. Absolutely frustrating." Unfortuantely, this just is just one of a long, long, list of misrepresentations that many Young Earth creationists make about how conventional geologist either argue or interpret the geologic record. This misinterpretation is equivalent to the claim that conventional geologists argue that the sediments enclosing polystrate fossils accumualted over millions / tens of thousands of years, which ignores / overlooks /conflates the difference over instantaneous and average accumualtuon rates. At time this, geologists would argue that the "the present is the key to the Pleistocene and other periods of Icehouse climates". However, geologists would certainly **not** regard the present as the key to either Hothouse climates or the PreCambrian. For information on Hothouse (Greenhouse) and Icehouse climates, go look at: 1. 3.4.2. Global Climate and PhytogeographyGlobal Climate and Phytogeography in the Early Mesozoic 2.Ancient climate may augur future effects of global warmingAncient climate may augur future effects of g | EurekAlert! 3. ICE HOUSE or HOT HOUSE?Climate History http://www.scotese.com/images/globaltemp.jpg 4. Cenozoic Climate: From the Greenhouse to the Icehousehttp://phoenix.liu.edu/~divenere/notes/cz_climate.htm A new study that shows how climatic factors have changed during geological time is: New Findings on Climate Show GradualShift to Modern But Increased Sensitivity to Perturbations, NSF PR 04-070 - May 19, 2004 Find News | Beta site for NSF - National Science Foundation The study referred to in this press release is: Ravelo, A. C., Andreasen, D. H., Lyle, M., Lyle, A. O.,and Warea, M. L., 2004, Regional climate shifts caused by gradual global cooling in the Pliocene epoch. Nature. vol. 429, no. 6989, pp. 263 - 267 (20 May 2004) Yours, Bill P.S. Interesting web pages for people to look at: Operation Air Conditionerhttp://66.241.249.83/ http://66.241.249.83/dw_pages/whatwedo.htm This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 05-20-2004 08:17 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024