|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,916 Year: 4,173/9,624 Month: 1,044/974 Week: 3/368 Day: 3/11 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Hydroplates unchallenged young earth explains Tectonics shortcomings! | |||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Er ... that's not a prediction. A prediction would be an explanation of how and why the Hawaiian islands came to be as they are, based on his "theory".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
You need to prove the Hawaiian Islands are still moving Piece o' cake. Plate motions are being measured regularly by several means. This is from Geodetic VLBI, measured by Very Long Baseline Interferometry from satellites: (Click for full size image) The raw data and detailed explanations and lots more maps are available at the above-referenced URL. {AdminAsgara fixed the width but made the figure difficult to read. For a more readable version see http://lupus.gsfc.nasa.gov/plots/maps/jpg/Pacific.jpg. The length and direction of the purple lines indicate the differences between the measured motion and the motion that would be seen if the plate was moving as a rigid body. The purple lines are much shorter than the lines that indicate the overall direction and amount of motion, proving that the plate is moving almost like a rigid body (and deforming a little) and carrying the Hawaiian Islands along with it.} And, from UNAVCO Brochure Online with Figures Available, GPS measurements:
[This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 02-06-2004] [This message has been edited by JonF, 02-06-2004]
[Fix width of jpeg. --Admin] [This message has been edited by Admin, 02-06-2004] What's the record for the most edits? My latest one is to restoer what Admin over-wrote. [This message has been edited by JonF, 02-06-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Burchfiel, B. C., 2004, 2003 Presidential Address: New Technology; New Geological Challenges.GSA Today. vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 4-9. Until the end of February, the article can be downloaded at the Burchfiel (2004) GSA Today Web page. This web page has links for a PDF file and html version of this paper. That link leads to a GSA Field Guide. I think the correct link is GSA Today: Volume 14, Number 2, February 2004.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
The plate is riding on rock that gets more and more molten as you descend. It is the molten rock under the plates that is moving them. I am not a real geologist, but I occasionally play one on TV {grin}. I believe that the plates are "riding on" the mantle, which is essentially all solid but plastic. Perhaps Joe or Bill will correct one or both of us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I'll be glad to point out your errors and misconceptions ... after you support your assertions:
There are so many things, like scattered undersea volcanoes that the Hydroplate clearly explains much better than the embattled plate tectonic theory! Seven pages and we don't have any specifics from you. Exactly how does the hydroplate theory explain scattered undersea volcanoes? How does the hydroplate theory explain the Hawaiian Islands? \What other things are better explained by hydroplates? [This message has been edited by JonF, 02-06-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Ned, Without the water in the inner earth, the plates would be would not be moving, even with melted rock, this is the premise of Walts Hydroplate theory A premise that is contradicted by the evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
You need to prove that Walt is wrong about water under the plates aiding in crustal transport, No, you've got the burden of proof confused. You and Walt are claiming the hydroplate thory; it's your responisibility to prove that water under the plates is involved in crsrtal transport.
if there was no water under the plates, it would be rock pressing against rock, the friction would be too great Unsupported assertion. How much friction would there be?
isn't rock thats a liquid under these great pressures a solid Liquids are never solids, and vice versa. The mantle is solid, below the mantle is liquid. But he mantle is plastic, meaning that it can be deformed permanently and "flow" slowly.
how could two solids move laterally By plastic shear deformation, the easiest kind of plastic deformation to induce. It doesn't require any volume change or change in elevation, so it doesn't require a lot of energy input. But it's very slow in hot rock.
proof in the natural that Walts hydroplate theory is literally correct The existence of water below the surface of the earth is not evidence for the hydroplate "theory".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
You made a big deal about whether or not the Hawaiian Islands are moving, and we supplied plenty of proof that they are; please reply to http://EvC Forum: Hydroplates unchallenged young earth explains Tectonics shortcomings! -->EvC Forum: Hydroplates unchallenged young earth explains Tectonics shortcomings! and tell us what you think.
It not a premise the waters down there Correct. However, it is an assumption, contradicted by the evidence, that there is water in the pools required for Walt's "theory". We have very good evidence of what's down there from "imaging" by analyzing the transmission of earthquake waves.
the hydroplate theory is literally correct Nope. The hydroplate "theory" is a lot more than "there's water down there" and requires a lot more evidence than the existence of water below the surface of the Earth.
your premise is liquid rock is the hydraulic lubricating agent Absolutely incorrect. You should not make up stuff; you're really bad at it. There is no hydraulic lubricating agent and nobody has held such a premise in the last 75 years or so. The evidence shows clearly that there is no hydraulic lubricating agent; the plates are not moving on any kind of liquid. The plates are moving by slow shear deformation of plastic solid rock and incredibly slow convection currents. From UNB GEOLOGY 1001 Lecture 2 - The Dynamic Earth - Plate Tectonics:
quote: Water compressibility under extreme pressures, is it not less compressible than your dense basalt liquid rocks It is not "less compressible than your dense basalt liquid rocks". Water is more compressible than solid (but plastic) or liquid rocks.
its because of the inability of water to be compressed to any great extent that the plates are able to move False deduction from a false premise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Hey, Joe, any comments on isostatic rebound vis a vis Walt and/or Baumgardner? It seems to me that hydroplate "theory" can't explain isostatic rebound, but I'm not positive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
but couldn't find anything that showed where the bench marks are located on Hawaii Then you didn't look hard. The VLBI site I supplied includes all that information. Or you could actuall got to a library and reqad the technical literature referenced by the various web pages. [qsd]I have no problem with the liquid rock being plastic[/qs] Nor do I. But the point is that the solid but hot rock of the mantle is also plastic. I won't bother with the rest of your gibberish. How do you explain the formation of the Hawaiian Islands? [This message has been edited by JonF, 02-07-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
The Hawaiian Islands formed because of plastic liquid rock and water erupting out of the earth, the fracture likely was opened up, when the waters erupted out of the earth So, what's happening today?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
And Darwin's against it. Error again. The young earth theory was dead before Dasrwin and before radioactivity was discovered; see http://EvC Forum: What is the basis for a Creationist argument against Evolution? -->EvC Forum: What is the basis for a Creationist argument against Evolution?. Darwin just collected his data and proposed his theory. He was bothered by the fact that, according to the thinking of his time, the Earth was much much older than 6,000 years but apparently not old enough for his theory. After that we discovered how old the Earth really is.
Walt proposes that this water collected in a huge reservoir beneath what became a mid-oceanic ridge
I believe he says we'll assume it was already there and start from that premise. Really? If so, that's called "making up the major foundation of his theory" or pulling it out of your ... maybe I shouldn't say it. Either way, you don't base a scientific theory on making up evidence. He could speculate aboput what might happen if the water collected in a huge reservoir beneath what became a mid-oceanic ridge, but it isn't a theory unitl there's some evidence. How about some evidence that it happened?
However at first glance, several miles of rock sliding sounds firmer than tissue He spoke of paper towels, not tissue. How about at second glance? What's the comparative stiffness of the two?
Gee- must've taken millions of years to accumulate since God's flood didn't dump them! ha Since there are no corresponding deposits on or under land therefore no, your suposed flood didn't dump them there.
if the state statute says teach evolution I say dump the school system! The statutes require teaching science. Made up fairy tales like Walts's aren't science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Double post, sorry
[This message has been edited by JonF, 02-07-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
That's not to say that there was uniform acceptance of ages >6000 years, but the ideas were well formulated and available to Darwin. Hum, that's not my understanding, although you're probably mcuh more espert than I am. I am, of course, aware of the various pre-radioisotope-dating estimates listed in "The Age of the Earth", including estimates in the millions and billions of years in teh first half of the nineteenth century. Hoewever, I have found Dr. Andrew MacRae to be a trustworthy source, and wonder if you have any comments on the folowing, from Hugh Miller -- 19th-century creationist geologist:
quote: [This message has been edited by JonF, 02-07-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
The Hawaiian Islands formed because of plastic liquid rock and water erupting out of the earth, the fracture likely was opened up, when the waters erupted out of the earth, the Pacific Plate might of galloped a bit(hydro-plate theory), opening up the fracture a bit, being pressed by the different mid-ocean ridges, etc... You'r still just waving your arms and ignoring the evidence. Look at http://EvC Forum: Hydroplates unchallenged young earth explains Tectonics shortcomings! -->EvC Forum: Hydroplates unchallenged young earth explains Tectonics shortcomings!. No mater what you think of age determinations, there is a correlation there that must be explained. And why is the amoutnof erosion on each island, and every indication of age, correlated with distance from Kiluea?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024