Wegener and Evidence for Continental Drift

quote:

---

"You are the one claiming some kind of legitimacy for CPT. It is incumbent upon you to support your assertions. If you cannot do so, then you must accept the fact that you will be taken to the woodshed in a debate."

​

--Thats nice, but I never made any positive assertions regarding stress and strain in the lithosphere and what would be expected if CPT occurred, so if you don't want to take it anywhere, I havent even jumped in so don't push me in a hole you and IRH dug just so that you could accuse me of not supporting an assertion I never made.

---

Actually, I'm just looking for ANY kind of evidence that you can provide. This one was just a suggestion since you seem to be having so much trouble elsewhere.

quote:

---

"I don't expect anything because there is no evidence that they were so high."

​

--hm..

​

--Who would have thought--edge make a logical fallacy?

---

Except that the premise was yours, not mine...

quote:

---

"So, you can expose a thin veneer of the mantle to seawater. Do you realize how large the mantle is?"

​

--You mean in surface area below the ocean crust? Sure, but what are you trying to get at? You don't think mantle rock would be exposed to oceanic water at such spreading rates as CPT postulates?

---

No, I don't. How do you cool mantle material at 200 km depth with seawater? You have to cool the entire mantle in a very short period of time here. If you could do it by heating seawater, you still have the problem of a poached Noah and a sterilized earth.

quote:

---

This ones not as bad as your previous circular reasoning, but it still made me laugh:

​

You say: "Utter nonsense... Do you have any idea what the products of such a reaction would be?" [edge expresses my apparent stupidity for invoking such a reaction because of the products]

​

I say: "Not really. Do you?"

​

"No[lol - why express his surprise at my invoking 'such a reaction' because of the products when he doesn't know the products..]. Once again, it is your job to come up with an explanation to support your hypothesis, not mine.[then you go off on a tangent. This is out of place because you are not responding to my attempt at supporting my hypothesis. You are responding to my denial of knowing what the products of the reaction would be.]"

---

Wrong. My meaning was not that I don't have any ideas, but that it is your job to come up with them. By the way, my ideas for products cannot are not found on earth. But just think of it logically: If the processes were that much different during the flood, why do we see no distinctive products of this interaction between the entire mantle and seawater, for instance.

quote:

---

--Mind if I do a little sketch for this one:

---

Once again, the premise was yours, not mine. I am under no obligation to follow any rules of logic. If you provide an assertion you should have SOMETHING to back it up. I can't do all your work for you.

quote:

---

What makes any of my research proposals unrealistic and undeserving of an ioda of scientific attention? Some vague generalization against creationism isn't going to cut it, give me something specific.

---

There are too many glaring inconsistencies, such as the cooling problem. No self-respecting institution would give you a dime unless you can come up with a reasonable explanation and a way to demonstrate it. Do you think research money grows on trees? Tell you what, I have a friend as NSF. Give me a copy of your proposal and I'll send it up to him for some constructive criticism.

quote:

---

"Except that the premise was yours, not mine..."

​

--Its not the premise I am having trouble with.

---

I know that you don't have a problem with your own premise. I simply fail to see why I should provide you with evidence for it>>>

quote:

---

Its your saying that it is utter nonesense when you admittently don't know whether the premise is right or not.

---

Wrong. I DO know that it makes no sense whatsoever.

quote:

---

Read it again: You say "Utter nonesense...Do you have any idea what the products of such a reaction would be", I say that I don't,...

---

Then you really have no support for it.

quote:

---

... then you say you don't either!

---

Simply because I haven't thought about it. Since then, I have and I see no evidence of such products.

quote:

---

So why is it then utter nonesense? Oh wait a sec, you don't know.

---

Actually, I have some pretty good ideas. For one the planet would be sterile right now if you were correct about CPT. This has been revealed to you several times and you still have no explanation.

quote:

---

"No, I don't. How do you cool mantle material at 200 km depth with seawater?"

​

--You don't. Why would I want to cool anything at 200 km depth with seawater??

---

You are the one who said that the earth would be cooled by reaction with sea water. You have to account for what happened to all of the heat contained within the earth to reduce heat flows to their present levels.

quote:

---

"You have to cool the entire mantle in a very short period of time here. If you could do it by heating seawater, you still have the problem of a poached Noah and a sterilized earth."

​

--Indeed.

---

I am glad that you are becoming reasonable on this.

quote:

---

"Wrong. My meaning was not that I don't have any ideas, but that it is your job to come up with them."

​

--I already came up with the idea, that isn't the problem, the problem is that you have claimed it is utter nonesense.

---

You have not provided any idea as to what would happen and what geological features would be produced under CPT conditions.

quote:

---

"By the way, my ideas for products cannot are not found on earth. But just think of it logically: If the processes were that much different during the flood, why do we see no distinctive products of this interaction between the entire mantle and seawater, for instance."

​

--The entire mantle?? What do you think I am postulating here, hydrothermal circulation at hundreds of kilometres depth or something? I'm creating a new oceanic lithosphere, not cooling the entire volume of the mantle.

---

Where is the heat for CPT coming from then?

quote:

---

"Once again, the premise was yours, not mine. I am under no obligation to follow any rules of logic. If you provide an assertion you should have SOMETHING to back it up. I can't do all your work for you."

​

--I've backed it up as far as needed so far, that isn't where the dillema resides though, its your claiming my process is utter nonsesense and then claiming that you don't know what detrimental effects the process would have(ie, didn't support your claim that it is utter nonesense).

---

We have been over this before. You have no evidence for CPT.

quote:

---

"There are too many glaring inconsistencies, such as the cooling problem."

​

--The cooling problem is a topic if scientific research all on its own, so what are you talking about?

---

The cooling problem.

quote:

---

"No self-respecting institution would give you a dime unless you can come up with a reasonable explanation and a way to demonstrate it."

​

--Isn't coming up with the explanation and demonstrating it part of the research in the first place??

---

Sorry, but you at least have to have some ideas and some evidence of what you would see that was different under CPT conditions compared to present conditions.

TC, let's put it this way:What evidence do you have that conditions during CPT were such as you and Baumgardner suggest. If they were so different from the uniformitarian viewpoint, there should be significant departures from the norm expressed in the geological record. Such spreading rates as Baumgardner should produce an abundance of data. Where are they? The sediment argument did you no good at all and this business about magnetic reversals is really unhelpful as well. And the Venus analogy, well, let's just say that it makes no sense to even bring it up.So, back to the same old question that confounds creationists everywhere and every time: What is the evidence to support your claims?