|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 6277 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Where did the flood waters come from and where did they go? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
quote:Yes, I guess there is a little confusion in this thread. So I guess Randy would have to retract applicability of his question to CPT because CPT does not have such an issue? quote:CPT is an underdeveloped theory. Ultimately all these questions will lead back to 'how old is the earth'. But that does not mean subsidiary potentially falsifiable questions cannot be formulated and answered. -Chris Grose "...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
quote:So I guess the topic of the thread is not derived only from the "thread topic" field, but from the first thread post as well? I guess that when read correctly, you are right that it is clear that Randy wants the question answered "what was the source of sufficient water to cover the earth 15 cubits above the mountains and where did these water go after the flood?" I am just saying that it appears unfair that Randy can make assertions in his first post that are not on his own topic and let them go unrefuted because it would be off topic to refute them. -Chris Grose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
quote:Yes indeed. However I would guess that that 'rain' would be a little more intense depending on your location. But that isn't really relevant to this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
deerbreh,
Assuming TB argues in favor of CPT ("recolonization model" or not); If you understand what is geodynamically implicit in CPT, you probably should be hesitant to say that the waters would have to reach the height of Mt. Everest. However I will leave it to TB to clarify what he means by "We're not claiming to be able to inundate today's world." Because indeed it does seem to imply that the earths current topography (or at least hypsography) has been essentially unaltered throughout "the flood".
quote:I don't want to derail this topic anymore by entertaining this topic here, but perhaps you could open a new thread in an attempt to support your assertions and address some of the responses I gave to these criticisms in post 64..? Or open a new thread and formulate your own thought-out criticisms of Baumgardner's modeling as to how it is a case of "garbage in, garbage out" methodology and "ignores inconvenient physical laws".. Thanks. -Chris Grose This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-24-2005 11:18 PM "...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
quote:Accelerated decay is not directly relevant to the CPT and runaway subduction (and baumgardner's computer models of the process), and the rate of tectonic motion is not a physical law.. You need to open another thread if you want to support your assertions. Of course I have dealt with your type many times before and the likelyhood of you actually doing so is slim to none, and yet you will go on making those same unsupported assertions. I would like to see you prove me wrong here. But as people say on the board, "put up or shut up". quote:If you have been reading the thread and understand what has been discussed, you would not be asking me this question.. this problem does not exist with CPT. -Chris Grose This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-26-2005 02:25 PM "...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
I was suspended before I could edit my post 106. However since it remains in the open and has received replies, I wont be editing it. Instead I would like to apologize about my hasty, relatively prejudicial comment regarding 'having dealt with your type' before. Nevertheless, my invitation remains open for you to support your assertions in a new thread.
-Chris Grose "...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
quote:Accelerated decay is about as relevant to CPT as abiogenesis is to Evolutionary Theory. The mechanism for CPT is runaway subduction. I do not adhear to CPT and have not for quite a long time, however it deserves more credit than has been given. quote:The problem is that rates of tectonic motion in the past are based on a method whose scale is desputed in the competing theory--that method being radioisotopic dating. I am glad that Percy understands that CPT really does not need to answer this question (whatever its veracity in other contexts), and I hope that you do too--I am presuming that you do.
quote:What would you expect to find? quote:I have not looked into an answer to there being excess toxic gases so I cannot give a good response to that. However, radiogenic heat aside, the heat from CPT is potentially managable. -Chris Grose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
quote:You can do this with virtually any computer model with manually controlled parameters. The question is whether the parameters used are correct or not. Baumgardner did not use any outlandish parameters as far as I am aware. I explained some of this in the first paragraph of post 64. -Chris Grose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
quote:Are you sure? You must have experience with this poster outside of the forum to understand his level of understanding here? quote:Do you want to elaborate on what you mean by, 'and then there's the associated friction' and why you think it produces too much heat? -Chris Grose "...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
quote:Indeed. TB seems to basically agree with me except he also adds the possibility that there was water both originating from beneath the earth and from above/in the atmosphere (such as the vapor canopy, or some other undefined extraterrestrial origin). When I referred to there being rain, I think that this rain was both a result of the normal atmospheric water cycle and from a small percentage of the water falling back to earth from the said 'steam jets'. Furthermore geochemical fractionation of water (among other volatiles) out of mantle rock through surface vents (including seafloor spreading centers) is about the extent of what I believe could have been the source of 'extra water' from under the earth. This water, however, is an insignificant addition and is not going to effect sea level. However TB seems to allow for large "chambers" of water at least underneath or within the oceanic lithosphere similar to that proposed by Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory. I see little reason to believe this, and in fact I think that pre-cambrian tectonics would have caused this source to rupture far before cambrian tectonics (the onset of CPT). What are your thoughts, TB? -Chris Grose This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-27-2005 09:27 PM "...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
quote:Pretty much yes, that is my understanding. As the oceanic lithosphere sinks into the mantle it releases gravitational potential energy in the form of heat. High stresses develop in the mechanical boundary layer surrounding the slab as a result of those gravitational body forces causing the silicate mantle rock to weaken. The weakening arising from heating can lead to an increased sinking rate, an increased heating rate, and greater weakening. This progressively increasing thermal weakening results in runaway. Therefore runaway subduction drives CPT. -Chris Grose This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-27-2005 10:26 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
quote:What I am implying when I say that 'I do not adhear to CPT' is that I am not a convinced YEC or OEC. I mean that I do not believe CPT happened or that it didn't happen. It is merely a theory I am interested in that I think is a possible alternative to conventional geodynamics. -Chris Grose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
quote:Right the early crustal evolution by fractionation of the lithophile component of early mantle composition is a process that I am convinced happened. In this framework I can't consider large collections of water beneath or within the continents as plausible. They would have vented very early in the earths initial evolution. Indeed there would have been some water left over form initial fractionation as well as water subducted with the hydrated oceanic crust, but nothing of significant magnitude. -Chris Grose This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-29-2005 02:29 PM "...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
Chris does not believe there was added water, so he has nothing to add to this thread. This message is off-topic, please do not reply. If someone would like to propose a CPT thread that would be fine. Or you can resume discussion in a pre-existing CPT thread, there are probably a few still open. --Admin
quote:The mechanism is runaway subduction. Can you show me that runaway subduction is inconsistent with known physics? quote:What kind of geological evidence would you expect to find? quote:I am assuming you know what the term, 'garbage in, garbage out' means. So can you show me that this is the case with Baumgardner's simulations? Is he using faulty parameters? quote:I'll agree it is relevant to the topic and therefore am happy to discuss it, however it still remains that because of the nature of CPT the ultimate problem posed by this thread is not an issue (whatever CPT's scientific credibility). quote:I think you have a strong misunderstanding of CPT. Within the framework of CPT, the himalayas did not exist early in the process and were formed through it. -Chris Grose This message has been edited by Admin, 06-29-2005 02:42 PM "...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
I never made a claim that there was such a paper. The onus is always on the person who has made the positive assertion. You have made such assertions against CPT. If you would like to support them open your thread doing so, otherwise your assertions are bare. I am not about to argue against vague assertions whose support is unknown.
This will be my last reply to you on this topic until you or I (unlikely) open a new thread or continue in another thread. -Chris Grose "...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024