|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Catastrophic Plate Tectonics - Fact or Fiction? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Wouldn't evidence of the mechanisms behind ocean plate motion be present at mantle plume islands like Hawaii? If slab pull is the mechanism, then the oceanic crust and underlying sea floor should have experienced a period where they pulled away to the east of the islands as they were forming. If ridge push is the mechanism, then they should have piled up on the west side of the islands. And if mantle currents is the mechanism then there should be no pulling away or piling up of sea floor.
This evidence is possibly subtle to non-existent. Such islands form, or at least are thought to form, from a plume of hot material from the mantle that pushes through to the surface of the sea floor where magma accumulates on the sea floor over a long enough period that it rises above the surface of the ocean. The size of the "hole" poked up from the mantle might be too small to produce a measurable effect on the moving sea floor. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1733 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Wouldn't evidence of the mechanisms behind ocean plate motion be present at mantle plume islands like Hawaii? If slab pull is the mechanism, then the oceanic crust and underlying sea floor should have experienced a period where they pulled away to the east of the islands as they were forming. I would expect crustal tears to be perpendicular to the sense of motion, and parallel to the trenches where the pull is coming from.
If ridge push is the mechanism, then they should have piled up on the west side of the islands. And if mantle currents is the mechanism then there should be no pulling away or piling up of sea floor. Certainly, one would expect convergent fault plane solutions; again with plane perpendicular to the sense of motion. Just a guess on my part, however.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
quote:No no no no no. I think I am not very well conveying CPT and where it diverges from the issue of the radioisotopic decay rate. The theoretical realm of CPT does not directly as a requirement include accelerated radioisotopic decay--it is not needed for CPT to unfold. They are linked indirectly by a statement of practical deduction--if CPT occured, radioisotopic decay most probably happened as well. CPT only 'violates physical laws' in the context of this statement--that has auxilliary hypotheses that might not even be correct--and thus its disconfirming significance is not as great as you imply. quote:Firstly, there are no "violation(s) of known physical law(s)", there is only the issue of the radioisotopic decay rate. The only possible situation of evidence that I can think of is that of CPT itself--if CPT occured it would be evidence in favor of an accelerated decay rate because of what it implies for the geological record. Therefore, potential falsifiability of accelerated decay lies within the confirmation of CPT. quote:Because CPT explains a lot of geological data. quote:This is about as significant as me saying "Evolution is only a theory".. This degree of speculation is about the same as mainstream geologys 'speculation' on the significance of basal tension as a tectonic driving force. Glatzmaier's analysis shows that the behavior of the geodynamo can vary greatly depending on variables like CMB heat flow, core geometry, relative viscosity, etc.--variables which would be far more variable during a phase of runaway subduction. It is reasonable therefore, to hypothesize that extreme behavior in the geodynamo would occur during CPT. quote:The onus is on you to support this assertion. Please note that your statement here requires that you (a) know what conditions CPT implies and (b) that you can demonstrate that they could never occur. Support it or withdraw it. quote:You don't seem to fully understand how science is done--or more accurately the many ways science is and can be done.. Indeed I do not either, however I do believe that an inductive methodology (of course, my scientific methods are hardly confined to inductive logic) of scientific explanation should not be referred to as 'shoehorn[ing] the evidence into the biblical myth'. I have accurately stated several times that you are not looking for evidence for CPT, you are looking for evidence (data) that can be explained by CPT and NOT by modern geology. I have also argued that the modern uniformitarian view of geology has a remarkable ability to continue molding itself, modifying auxilliary hypotheses after another without the ultimate theory suffering variations in the degree of confirmation/credibility--how could you not with all that time? Modern geology is specified to the point where it rather fails the virtue of refutability in the philosophy of science. This virtue of theories is a matter of degree measured by the cost of retaining the hypothesis in the face of imaginable events. The degree is measured by how clearly we cherish the previous beliefs that would have to be sacrificed to save the hypothesis. The greater the sacrifice, the more refutable the hypothesis. Modern geology gives very little sacrifice--so much so that it would require something like finding a human skull in cambrian rock record to even begin to be questioned. In fact, I can't think of too many other imaginable events except like anomalies in the fossil record that would be considered candidates for disconfirming evidence. So much more of modern geology's survivability is in the virtue of conservism and generality than in refutability. Furthermore in the context of our discussion, those imaginable events should be formulated while also considering the predictions of CPT. The reason the human skull example is considerable is because this 'anomaly' is an imaginable event that would not also disconfirm CPT. However other imaginable events, such as a lithosphere that does not thicken with age, the current forces of tectonics, etc. are not reasonable imaginable events because CPT expects what PT predicts at least approximately what CPT would predict as well so its potential disconfirmation is rendered null in light of the competing theory. quote:That isn't all you said, and what you initially said was wrong as I pointed out. quote:Ok, I will say 'no' on several fronts. The total body force of slab pull can be shown to be significant. Slab pull is comprised of downward gravitational body forces acting on the cold lithosphere due to thermal contraction and an elevation in the olivine-spinel phase change boundary. The olivine-spinel phase change occurs at a certain depth in the surrounding mantle. However because the isotherm is adjusted in the lithosphere at that depth, the phase change occurs at a shallower depth and lower pressure in the lithosphere. Thermal contraction, however, is the dominating contributor to this total body force. The basic significance of the force of thermal contraction can be seen just by putting the coefficient of thermal expansion to work. Using an equation (sorry no greek) to find change in density; dp = -pavdT, where p is density, av is the coefficient of thermal expansion, and dT is change in temperature. From a hypothetical density of 3000 kg/m3, av = 3x10-5, and a temperature difference of 1200 K; dp = 108 kg/m3, more than a 3% increase in density. Using more accurate complex equations, Turcotte and Schubert in Geodynamics estimate a total slab pull body force of 4.9 x 10^13 N m^-1 on the descending lithosphere. Here you've stated that "this isn't a difference capable of generating the rapid descent of plates into the mantle that you require", if you still hold to the accuracy of your assertion, it is up to you to support it. The general consensus among geophysicists and geologists alike is that slap pull probably is the most significant force acting on the oceanic lithosphere. It has been numerically shown to create stresses in the lithosphere an order of magnitude greater than "ridge push" (gravitational sliding) (see Geodynamics). I have not seen any numbers regarding the forces associated with basal traction, however it is probably negligible in the oceanic lithosphere as has been suggested by results from nonlinear rheological plate models of global tectonics separated by faults with low friction to test hypotheses on plate driving mechanisms against plate velocities and stresses (Bird, 1998; also see Richardson, et al., 1979). Also, if you compile data on total trench length and compare it against plate velocity, you will notice that all the fast and superfast spreading occurs in oceanic plates connected to subducting slabs, seemingly indicating that the slab pull force is indeed significant and that at least gravitational sliding is negligible. The reason significant large scale plate deformation is not seen is because these forces are not that significant. Gravitational sliding is not significant enough to cause the plate to flex to any observational significance, let alone buckle and fold, and slab pull is not significant enough to overcome the elastic strength of the lithosphere to manifest itself on the surface in the form of faulting and, volcanism, etc. The whole of the oceanic lithosphere moves in response to these body forces as a coherent plate and these tensional stresses thus propogate its full length over the deformable mantle. It is likely that slap pull, gravitational sliding, and basal tractions probably all contribute, however slab pull most plausibly has the greater contribution. Bird, P., Testing Hypotheses on plate-driving mechanisms with global lithosphere models including topography, thermal structure, and faults. J. Geophys. Res. 103, 1998. 10115-29 Richardson, R. M., Solomon, S. C., and Sleep, N. H. Tectonic stress in the plates. Rev. Geophys. Space Phys. 17, 1979. 981-1019
quote:Firstly, that is not what I am doing, with the exception of a few instances of me mistakenly saying "uniformitarian geology" instead of adding the correct modifiers I have accurately described the position of the general consensus in geology. Secondly, if I was 'opinion shopping' then that some geologists consider the principles of modern geology 'catastrophic uniformitarianism' or 'new uniformitarianism' or 'modern uniformitarianism', etc. is completely inconsistent with your original arguments here. You've stated that it is an oxymoron, NOT an opinion. You've claimed that "there is no other kind of 'uniformitarianism' than the classical" principle. Therefore these variations with other geologists are not 'opinions' they are just wrong according to you. This is not the case, however. Geologists do refer to current geological principles as 'uniformitarian' (with an appropriate descriptive modifier like 'new', 'modern', "actualist", or 'catastrophic') because not all of the statements of classical uniformitarianism have been discarded. quote:No, I think you are still confused about the word 'uniformitarianism'. See above. Also, to further explain, Hutton published the proposal that Earth's history could be explained in terms of processes observed in the present; that is, "the present is key to the past." This was the beginning of uniformitarianism. Lyell, in his Principles of Geology, modified Hutton's ideas and applied this philosophy to explain geological features in terms of relatively gradual everyday processes. Modern actualist uniformitarianism holds that the geologic record is the product of both slow, gradual processes and naturally occuring catastrophes. The scale of events may change, but modern uniformitarianism still holds that the physical laws operating today are key to the past. Therefore the modern understanding doesn't completely exclude the word 'uniformitarianism', but may be referred to as 'modern', 'new', etc. Uniformitarianism as a guiding principle. quote:No, this would just be stupid. I have never once argued this and I think it is foolish of you to think that I would argue something like this. quote:Ultimately you are right, it is a bit misleading to say exclusively 'uniformitarian geology'. quote:Well this is your forum, you do have the power to quibble about whatever you want--But go right ahead, I could use a good laugh. quote:Participants are expected to make their case for their perspective?? Clearly, you don't even know my perspective!!! I will argue in favor of what I actually hold to be true and accurate. I will not argue in favor of some strawman of my perspective that you created just because it is an easy target. quote:CPT is not 'my case'. I provided the 10^28 J figure and explained how it was determined as requested: from gravitational potential energy. What more is there needed to know?? Gravitational potential energy is NOT COMPLICATED and obviously does not rely on a set of auxilliary hypotheses that could have some variability within CPT. Baumgardner's numerical and computer models spit it out. How in the world is that not sufficient explanation of how the 10^28 J figure was determined?? Furthermore, the confined box within which mantle convection simulations were run used a realistic mantle depth so I see no reason to believe there could be significant error in the number.. quote:I have explained this... Just THINK about it.. Gravitational potential energy...How is gravitational potential energy released?? In the case of a descending oceanic lithosphere moving toward the bottom of the mantle..where is that heat going to be released? This is not complicated. quote:I am NOT yet trying to propose CPT as a new paradigm of geology. How can you not know where I stand after all my participation on this forum?? Theories have varying degrees of credibility. I am not here to argue that the credibility of CPT exceeds that of mainstream PT and that is not my argument. If that perspective is not compatible with the purpose of this forum, well then not only is the purpose of this forum stupid and pointless (except to beat up on creationists tahat think they have a good model of earth history) but I guess that means I have nothing to contribute. Evidently the analysis of hypotheses and any new or underdeveloped theories cannot take place on this forum. quote:Regarding Baumgardner's 10^28 figure, I've explained countless times where the figure came from, it is not complicated and if you have a problem with it, explain what that problem is. Telling me that you won't accept it because the computer spit it out isn't a sufficient counter argument. That is like me saying "well my geology text says the outer core is a fluid, but that isn't good enough for me!" What is your problem with the figure and the way it was determined (as I have explained how it was determined several times). Do you have reason to question Baumgardner's numerical and computer models or not? Calculating Gravitational potential energy is NOT difficult.. quote:You can suspend me all you want, but this is just silly. Hi Edge, quote:I think you may misunderstand what is thought to cause the peripheral bulge. The bulge/upwarp is a manifestation of the oceanic lithosphere--under horizontal strain--as it will flex due to the applied vertical end load of the adjacent plate it delves under. The vertical force and bending moment (angle of subduction) are a result of the gravitational body forces acting on the descending plate. The bulging response at trenches is analogous to what is observed around seamounts and ocean islands like Hawaii. The adjacent lithosphere does not simply flex downard near the vertical load but produces a radial bulge in response to the loading. quote:Interesting, but I am not aware of any such research that concludes this. Therefore I don't think there is any data to indicate that the tensional stresses in the subducting slab will not be propogated through the rest of the rigid lithosphere it is connected to. Laboratory deformation experiments on some metastable minerals have been shown to display a shear instability called transformational faulting. However, this instability involves sudden failure by localized superplacity in thin shear zones where the metastable host mineral transforms to a denser, finer grained phase. Thus, as I understand it, the metastability model of transformational faulting is not the same as an occurance of brittle fracture and will not cause deep slabs to disconnect from the parent unsubducted oceanic lithosphere. Disconnection of oceanic lithosphere does appear to occur, but it is at significant depth and thus the slap pull force is still significant. I also understand that modeling metastability suggests that the slab pull force of a deflected phase change boundaries may be hindered by allowing a wedge of low density metastable olivine to survive at depths below the phase change boundary. Nevertheless, the presence (let alone magnitude) of this metastable olivine has not been determined through tomographic and other seismological methods. But even if it is there it is not likely to cancel out the total slab pull bodyforce and will probably remain numerically more significant than gravitational sliding several times over. quote:What makes you think the tensional stresses would be high enough to manifest itself on the surface in such a way? quote:What am I not analyzing critically enough? I have thought about these things... quote:What basics? quote:You appear to be trying to make me look ignorant.. I think that I have a better understanding of geodynamics than you seem to believe. I don't care if you don't give me credit where it is due (hell, that rarely ever happens) but for you to do the inverse I am not going to just sit back and tolerate. Hi again Percy, quote:The only bullshit here is your understanding of my position..or your inability to somehow comprehend it, or your willful ignorance of it. The quantity of intellectual time and energy I have invested in CPT is not logically connected to my acceptence of it (or degree of acceptence of it) or of anything. It is NOT the business of scientists as scientists to accept the hypotheses they research, whatever its degree of confirmation. quote:You might want to work on getting a better understanding of the PHILOSOPHY of Scientific acceptence, explanation, and justification. You have just described the flawed outcome of the epistomologically flawed schema of (t) and (s), where schema (t) is stated as "H then TI; TI, therefore H is confirmed" and likewise schema (s) is "H then TI; not TI, therefore H is disconfirmed" where H= hypothesis and TI=test implication. The problem is that the first premise (that of H then TI) will always contain auxiliary hypotheses. The actual form of the first premeses is (n) if H and A1 and A2 and ...An then TI. A1, A2, etc. are auxiliary hypotheses--hypotheses assumed when it is claimed that H implies TI. Therefore, to be more realistic about the first premise of (t), the formal conclusion can only be: Therefore, H is false, or A1 is false, or A2 is false, or ...An is false. The problem is that you think determination of A1, A2, and An, etc. is so simple within confirmatory evidence of CPT relative to PT. In order to best determine those auxilliary hypotheses (required to be true for falsification of H, the hypothesis), models of the hypothesis must be developed sufficiently. This is the problem with producing the diagnostic evidences you desire--the details of CPT have not been sorted out well yet and so it is very difficult to say that certain auxilliary hypotheses are correct when determining confirmation and disconfirmation of CPT. How well do you understand those 'basic scientific principles and thinking" that you seem to think you are advocating?? quote:This is like me refering to geology as "uniformitarian", so if you were me, and I were you, I guess you would be suspended. I have made it clear several times that you are NOT looking for EVIDENCE you are looking for a specific type of evidence. CPT has plenty of evidence just as does PT. These evidences act as epistemic reasons to confirm CPT. Similarily, Newtonian mechanics and general relativity share evidence. If PT was ever to be replaced by CPT, the paradigm shift would be similar to that seen when Einstein's Physics replaced Newtonian mechanics. The evidence of past centuries for Newtonian mechanics carried over, within limits, as evidence for Einstein's physics; for, as far as it goes, it fits both! "What is thus illustrated by Einstein's relativity is more modestly exemplified elsewhere, and generally aspired to: the retention, in some sense, of old theories in new ones. If the new theory can be so fashioned as to diverge from the old only in ways that are undetectable in most ordinary circumstances, then it inherits the evidence of the old theory rather than having it overcome it." W. V. Quine and J. S. Ullian, "Hypothesis." From The Web of Belief, 2nd ed., 1978 pp. 76-77.
quote:Then you don't know what science is, and you don't know what evidence is. Until you can stop misrepresenting CPT as if it had no evidence I am not about to show you possible situations of inquiry where CPT may be able to explain the data better than PT because I just don't want to hear this demonstratable nonsense. quote:You have a problem with tentativity and variation among theories trying to explain the same data? This is not unhealthy because they are different hypothetical frameworks of inquiry. If either of us claimed that our model was demonstraitably superior but could not support its supperiority, that would be unhealthy. I don't know about TB, but I have not done this. quote:Is that not what we are here to discuss? quote:This does not belong in this thread. quote:If you had a good understanding of the distribution and thickness of sediments on the ocean floor you probably would understand that this probably could not be determined. quote:How do you know? The only way to come to this conclusion is to formulate test implications for CPT and with CORRECT auxilliary hypotheses, deduce confirmation of CPT. You've shown nothing which indicates that this statement is true. quote:My logic and scientific methodology is not inconsistent with what is known about the philosophy of science--in justification, acceptance, explanation, etc. This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-17-2005 02:13 AM "...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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Hi Chris,
It appears to me that you're not even trying, so this time I'm suspending you for a week. Here's some brief feedback.
quote: No no no no no. I think I am not very well conveying CPT and where it diverges from the issue of the radioisotopic decay rate. The theoretical realm of CPT does not directly as a requirement include accelerated radioisotopic decay--it is not needed for CPT to unfold. Accelerated radioactive decay is needed in order to produce the evidence in the geological layers in a single year. You need to forthrightly address this issue.
quote: Because CPT explains a lot of geological data. Then you have to show this. Find some evidence. As I said earlier, anomolous fossil evidence, unexpected evidence of fission, sea floor deposition rate boundaries, these would all be evidence. As of now you have no evidence. Your "evidence" consists of the standard geological evidence, and you claim it could as easily be produced by CPT. But CPT's dramatically accelerated processes do not pass any reasonable sanity check. No reasonable person would consider it in the absence of incredibly strong evidence. CPT could only be one of the last resort scenarios when all attempts to explain the evidence by rational means fail. Look at it this way. Let's say that at some gathering someone began insisting that a person could carry out all the activity of a lifetime in a single hour. This would seem ludicrous to everyone. But the person persists in a serious manner, so people politely try to point out why this isn't possible. One of the obvious objections is how a person could possibly dissipate the heat of a lifetime in a single hour without burning to a cinder. Another obvious objection is how a person could be supplied enough energy in a single hour to carry out so much activity. Rapid accelerations and decelerations would be another objection. Friction with the atmosphere would be another. But the person advancing the proposal dismisses all these issues and insists on addressing why the person's clothes wouldn't come apart. You're doing the same thing with CPT. You're evading all the significant issues to argue minor details.
quote: The onus is on you to support this assertion. Please note that your statement here requires that you (a) know what conditions CPT implies and (b) that you can demonstrate that they could never occur. Support it or withdraw it. I'm sorry you don't get this, Chris. I'm no more obligated to prove CPT couldn't happen than I am to prove that Velikovsky's ping-ponging of Mars and Venus around the solar system couldn't happen. Both scenarios are self-evidently ridiculous. Now, if Mars had a huge gouge on one side and Venus had a similar gouge on one side, and if we sent landers to both gouge sites and discovered anomolous geological evidence that could only have come from the other planet, then we might be forced to consider scenarios along the lines of Velikovsky. You need similar dramatic evidence for CPT in order to force people to consider so outlandish a scenario.
quote: You don't seem to fully understand how science is done--or more accurately the many ways science is and can be done.. That's certainly possible, but this isn't the place to discuss this. Tell you what, I'll only suspend you from this forum. If you'd like to discuss the errors in my ideas about how science is done then you can propose a thread for the [forum=-11] forum. About the term uniformitarianism, continue to use it in reference to modern geology and I'll continue to suspend you. I will not try to match the amount of time and energy you bring to defending what I view as a misrepresentation. I've made my feelings on the matter known to you, see rule 1 of the Forum Guidelines. The remainder of your post to me reads like an extended evasion.
Find some evidence, Chris. Argue from the evidence. See you in a week.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1733 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
The general consensus among geophysicists and geologists alike is that slap pull probably is the most significant force acting on the oceanic lithosphere. It has been numerically shown to create stresses in the lithosphere an order of magnitude greater than "ridge push" (gravitational sliding) (see Geodynamics). Perhaps. However, how are those stresses relieved? Do you really think that a pull at the trench results in an equal pull at the ridge? I don't buy it. But then, I don't really care either. You can have your numerical models if you wish. My only observation is that most tectonism at the ridges is tensional or transformal. So, realistically, there is virtually no compression at the ridges to force the plates apart. To say that slab pull is an order of magnitude greater isn't saying much.
...Also, if you compile data on total trench length and compare it against plate velocity, you will notice that all the fast and superfast spreading occurs in oceanic plates connected to subducting slabs, seemingly indicating that the slab pull force is indeed significant ... Or there could be other factors...
...and that at least gravitational sliding is negligible. The reason significant large scale plate deformation is not seen is because these forces are not that significant. So, what about the lack of deformation caused by slab pull? Are those forces then, also negligible?
itational sliding is not significant enough to cause the plate to flex to any observational significance, let alone buckle and fold, and slab pull is not significant enough to overcome the elastic strength of the lithosphere to manifest itself on the surface in the form of faulting and, volcanism, etc. Come on, Chris! According to CPT, thes plates are being pulled along at meters per day or more! ANd without it, they would hardly move. Do you really expect no geological features to be caused by this? Also, think of the monstrous acceleration needed to go from normal PT to CPT by way of pulling the OC. Do you really expect it to be that smooth?
The whhole of the oceanic lithosphere moves in response to these body forces Slab pull, as I know it, is not a body force. Perhaps a definition is necessary here. That could be the source of confusion on this issue.
...as a coherent plate and these tensional stresses thus propogate its full length over the deformable mantle. It is likely that slap pull, gravitational sliding, and basal tractions probably all contribute, however slab pull most plausibly has the greater contribution. Possibly, but I think we need a definition here. Does slab pull originate at the subduction zone?
Participants are expected to make their case for their perspective?? Clearly, you don't even know my perspective!!! It would be nice if you made that clear to us.
I will argue in favor of what I actually hold to be true and accurate. I will not argue in favor of some strawman of my perspective that you created just because it is an easy target. Then you do espouse CPT since you have argued for it. Or are you holding multiple conflicting hypotheses? If so, it is understandable that you are confused.
I am NOT yet trying to propose CPT as a new paradigm of geology. How can you not know where I stand after all my participation on this forum?? Let me guess. You have defended a model that runs counter to most mainstream geology and stated that it explains the geological record better than any other theory; you have spent thousands of words and countless hours rationalizing 'at least one miracle' so that CPT could work; shall we go on? I'm not buying this bit, Chris.
Theories have varying degrees of credibility. I am not here to argue that the credibility of CPT exceeds that of mainstream PT and that is not my argument. But you have said this.
If that perspective is not compatible with the purpose of this forum, well then not only is the purpose of this forum stupid and pointless (except to beat up on creationists tahat think they have a good model of earth history) but I guess that means I have nothing to contribute. Evidently the analysis of hypotheses and any new or underdeveloped theories cannot take place on this forum. This has been analyzed over the last forty years. There is no evidence to support it yet. If you call that an 'undeveloped theory', fine, but I have another word for it... And yes, if you don't have any additional evidence, you are only wasting time.
What makes you think the tensional stresses would be high enough to manifest itself on the surface in such a way? Well, you have to pull the part nearest the ridge just as you would pull the part at the trench. If you want to slide this plate by pulling it, you will quickly exceed the strength of the crustal rocks mass.
What am I not analyzing critically enough? I have thought about these things... You have blindly accepted Baumgardner's model when it has no field evidence to support it and it fails to explain the geological record.
What basics? Structural geology, for one.
You appear to be trying to make me look ignorant.. I think that I have a better understanding of geodynamics than you seem to believe. I don't care if you don't give me credit where it is due (hell, that rarely ever happens) but for you to do the inverse I am not going to just sit back and tolerate. Chris, I have no need at all to make you look ignorant. I am afraid that you are managing that all by yourself. I am trying to get you to make yourself clear and understand that evidence is the very basic foundation of science. If you will not see that, then there isn't much that I can do for you. You are taking a stand (which you say is not your real position) and defending it to the point of ridiculousness and creating a lot of opposition to your ideas by violating your own integrity. This is the position of a young mind (shall I say, 'a teenager') who defends his position even though he knows it to be wrong. You seemingly cannot stand the thought of being wrong about something. You'd better get over it, just as the rest of us have, if you want to compete in the real world.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Philip Member (Idle past 4750 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: |
You clearly did NOT say that PT relies uses biology as a foundation.
Edge, this statement seems incoherent (verb confusion). So does the confusing "YEC" rant that follows it. (Please stay on topic) Also, I already stated I am satisfied with your excellent refutation and that I stood corrected. In sum, paleontology *appears* quite irrelevant to geo-physics and "PT vs CPT-Fact or Fiction". (Admittedly, I had erroneously suggested strata fossilization as somehow *supporting* PT or CPT; I believed I was wrong, biased, confused, etc.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5707 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
I regret not getting you into UF. What the heck are they teaching you at USF....better yet, why are you not taking good notes?
Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Joe, there are some formations a way south of me that have always interested me. If you have GoogleEarth or other neat tools (I immagine you've got tons available) they are in the general area of 26.011,-100.834.
Can you explain them to a poor layman like myself? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Asgara Member (Idle past 2330 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: |
Wow, those are cool formations, are they volcanic?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Philip Member (Idle past 4750 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: |
I’m currently looking at a Website ( Creation Explanation 3e) that has me totally perplexed about my confidence in PT theory, especially as it relates to the geo-column. That is, I’m now afraid that the geo-column was catastrophically produced (for the most part).
Then, Baumgardner himself (http://www.globalflood.org/papers/insixdays.html) refers to the geo-column in a paleontological manner. He states: The ubiquitous presence of crossbeds in sandstones, and even limestones, in Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and even Cenozoic rocks is strong testimony for high energy water transport of these sediments Cross-comparing these 2 sites suggests to me that the Himalayan tectonics (my rising mountain range dilemma) doesn’t *fit* with uniformatarianistic or *slow-moving* PT paradigms. Thus, I’m forced to recant what I said about paleontology being separate from PT theory (Sorry, Edge). And, knowing my biology (i.e., we have yet to find a mutation that increases genetic information); I must deny traditional paleontology and PT as validated. Heck, PT theory is only 40 years old: I feel like we’re all dogmatic weathermen or something, trying to dogmatically predict past PT force-vectors from the present. (Off topic: I’m very astonished and motivated by your message 183 ... very powerful)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Go just a little further east towards Montery and you'll see Sierra de Minas Viejas which always looked like it was created with an icecream scoop. I'm hoping Joe can shed some light.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1733 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Edge, this statement seems incoherent (verb confusion). So does the confusing "YEC" rant that follows it. (Please stay on topic) I was just comparing some of your statements. It seemed to me that you kind of understood the situation at some earlier point in the discussion. As far as the YEC rant, I don't even remember. Perhaps if you'd been around here a long time you might understand why we rant sometimes about YEC.
Also, I already stated I am satisfied with your excellent refutation and that I stood corrected. In sum, paleontology *appears* quite irrelevant to geo-physics and "PT vs CPT-Fact or Fiction". (Admittedly, I had erroneously suggested strata fossilization as somehow *supporting* PT or CPT; I believed I was wrong, biased, confused, etc.) Well, I wouldn't say 'irrelevant', or 'non-supporting'. Just unnecessary. In reality we use PT to explain some biogeographic information and in other cases PT questions might be illuminated by some paleontological data. THat's part of the beauty of the theory, there are so many ramifications and independent confirmations. The point I'm trying to make is that we could have a PT theory in the absence of biological data.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1733 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I’m currently looking at a Website ( Creation Explanation 3e) that has me totally perplexed about my confidence in PT theory, I can see why. This site puts just enough factual data out that one might think they were a credible source. Actually, some of it is outright false. For instance: 9. Extensive systems of deeply incised meanders cut by rivers in many parts of the world must have been produced rapidly at a time which the sedimentary layers were still not fully consolidated and therefore much softer than at present. THis is complete nonsense. First, meanders do not form overnight. They are signs of a mature, old topography: in this case, inherited from a previous period of erosion. Second, if the rocks were so much softer, how were high canyon walls maintained. I have a bunch of engineers who'd like to know how that could happen.
...especially as it relates to the geo-column. That is, I’m now afraid that the geo-column was catastrophically produced (for the most part). Have you always been this gullible? I say that many parts of the geological record were produced catastrophically. But not all of them. Get one thing into your head, RIGHT NOW: Some geological processes are rapid and some are slow. And: If you admit to one slow geological process, you cannot believe in YEC.
Then, Baumgardner himself (http://www.globalflood.org/papers/insixdays.html) refers to the geo-column in a paleontological manner. He states: The ubiquitous presence of crossbeds in sandstones, and even limestones, in Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and even Cenozoic rocks is strong testimony for high energy water transport of these sediments Umm, where is there anything about paleontology in this quote? And if you are talking about biogenic limestones, then you have a problem. How do you grow them in the geological record in such a short time.
Cross-comparing these 2 sites suggests to me that the Himalayan tectonics (my rising mountain range dilemma) doesn’t *fit* with uniformatarianistic or *slow-moving* PT paradigms. Do you do your biological research at sites like these?
Thus, I’m forced to recant what I said about paleontology being separate from PT theory (Sorry, Edge). Actually, I do not care a bit...
And, knowing my biology (i.e., we have yet to find a mutation that increases genetic information); I must deny traditional paleontology and PT as validated. Do you ever stay on topic? And I have little confidence that you know your biology either.
Heck, PT theory is only 40 years old: I feel like we’re all dogmatic weathermen or something, trying to dogmatically predict past PT force-vectors from the present. YOu like the word 'dogmatic' don't you? What is your point here? You claim to be knowledgable about biology and medicine, and yet you do your geology research at junk websites. This is unbelievable!
(Off topic: I’m very astonished and motivated by your message 183 ... very powerful) Yeah. I put a lot of work into that one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I enjoyed their comment about "Such massive volcanism is presently occurring at no place on the modern earth." I guess they think we only have 49 states. LOL
Can't wait to hear what they have to say when Yellowstone lets loose again. This message has been edited by jar, 07-18-2005 08:06 PM Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5707 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
GES DISC
Unfortunately, I've not been to this area, but the explanation here maybe something to think about. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024