simple writes:
Percy writes:
Well, yes, that's true, and it's because Walt's ideas were constructed with the the goal of being consistent with young earth preconceptions
And Darwin's against it.
Darwin's against young earth preconceptions? Yes, of course, but it makes no sense, given that you disagree with Darwin, that you would offer this as rebuttal, so I guess I don't know what you're saying. I see that in a couple of the replies to you people assumed you misspoke and that you really meant Darwin was against an ancient earth, and of course that is not true. As others have described, Darwin desired far more antiquity than other scientists, Lord Kelvin foremost among them, would allow him at the time.
simple writes:
Percy writes:
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. That's the way the world, in other words was made, water under in a separate layer. So why do you say Walt says it collects? And why only under ridge? it was everywhere. Could this basic flaw in your understanding of his theory be why you think it's silly? (you're on the ropes here)
I'm only replying to what you've told us about Walt's views. And I didn't say Walt's views were silly, I said they were falsified. As I told you in another thread, the views of many great scientists have been falsified, including Archimedes and Newton. That doesn't make their views silly. Of course, having your views falsified doesn't make you a great scientist, either.
So you say the water wasn't just beneath mid-oceanic ridges, but everywhere. This is a far greater amount of water than if it were just beneath the ridges, and it causes a problem that was only minor before to become huge: where's all this water now, since only the water that burst forth from beneath the ridges escaped. The rest of the water should still be there beneath the earth's surface, but it isn't.
The issue I raised still applies. While the earth *does* contain huge amounts of water, it does not tend to collect in huge reservoirs. It is all mixed in with the magma that lies beneath earth's surface and extends down to the liquid metallic core. Walt proposes that some of this water was in a huge reservoir beneath what became a mid-oceanic ridge and burst forth causing runaway plate motion. What caused the water that is usually distributed throughout the earth's interior to gather in narrow strips?
simple writes:
Percy writes:
Now raise the edge of the paper towel to a height of 1/2 of an inch. This corresponds to a height of 400 miles in Walt's model? Does the paper towel move? It doesn't, does it?
this is a good point. No age assumptions here. If what you say is true, even with a non evoltionist editor, you guys would have a caake walk in a debate with the dr. However at first glance, several miles of rock sliding sounds firmer than tissue!
Rock is much firmer than paper towels, but the paper towel is only a model for a plate thousands of miles in extent. At that scale the rock is weaker than a paper towel. This is because the strength of the material can only increase by the square (cross-sectional area), while the weight increases by the cube (volume).
Skyscrapers are a good example of the strength of materials on a large scale. Perhaps you've had the opportunity to see a solid steel girder, perhaps even examined one or touched one? They are very strong, and it is very difficult to imagine them bending. Skyscrapers are built from steel girders, and if you ever went up in a tall skyscraper, perhaps the World Trade Center or the Sears Tower, then you know from the talk they give you on the elevator ride up that the towers sway back and forth 10 feet or so in high winds. That's because on a large scale the steel girders are very flexible.
And on a large scale, so is rock. And the tectonic plates are not tiny like skyscrapers, which are less than 1/4 of a mile tall, but are huges, thousands of miles in extent. They are very flexible on that scale, even more flexible than a paper towel.
And unlike steel, rock is extremely brittle. It shatters when subjected to great forces. Water bursting forth to push the edge of a tectonic plate 500 or a thousand miles into space would shatter the rock of the plate.
Even if, for the sake of argument, we pretend the tectonic wouldn't crumble, there would be massive debris blown from the ridge, and it would turn on up the land on both sides of the ridge. Rocks that have been under great stress have particular analytical profiles. No such rocks have ever been found.
And the rocks near the ridge (they'd have to be near the ridge, since motion of 2-6 inches per year for 6000 years is only about 5 miles) show no signs of being bent and stressed, either. In fact, even though this huge explosion supposedly happened only 6000 years ago, no evidence of it has ever turned up.
And you still haven't addressed the original point. The friction of the paper towel against the counter is less than the friction of the plate against the underlying magma, yet when you lift the edge of the paper towel a distance equal to 800 miles, the paper towel doesn't budge. Even if you could blow the edge of a tectonic plate 800 miles into space without it coming apart, the tectonic plate would not begin sliding 10 miles a day because the friction is far too great.
simple writes:
Percy writes:
One reason Walt's ideas are not accepted within the scientific community, and in fact why people like Walt don't even bother to submit their ideas to scientific scrutiny...
sounds good, but we feel the community you mention is so riddled with the 'old age' disease that they are 'senile' and, till they choose to get better, would be in no state to judge sound reason or evidence!
In science, issues are argued using evidence and insight, not name calling. If it were the practice of science to reply to this in kind, saying perhaps that your community is immature and ignorant, then science would never make any progress, it would become just people calling each other names.
The point I was making was that scientists are not at liberty to ignore evidence. The current geological models are accepted because they explain the available evidence, and that includes the radiometric evidence. If you're going to reject the radiometric evidence then you have to argue based on that evidence, or upon such other evidence that you have. But if you're doing science, you cannot simply choose to ignore it.
So if you're to have a complete model, one capable of competing with modern views within geology, then you must consider the radiometric data, even if you do so only to falsify it.
simple writes:
Percy writes:
The depth of sediments on a stretch of ocean floor increase gradually over time, so the deeper the sediment, the older the ocean floor. This approach still yields a interval for reversals of about a half million years
now we're talking!! Deep sediments! Gee- must've taken millions of years to accumulate since God's flood didn't dump them! ha
This isn't an answer, but just a restatement of your opinion. Your supposed to be advancing arguments in support of your position, not just repeating your position. We already know what you believe.
It has already been described for you how floods leave very large grained debris. In very violent floods the grain size can be boulders the size of houses. What we instead find on the seafloor is very fine grained sediment, and in depths that would have taken millions of years to deposit. We find no deposits that resemble a flood.
simple writes:
Percy writes:
Do you really believe that what's taught in science class should be set by state statute
if the state statute says teach evolution I say dump the school system! Hope that answers your question!
Well, if you'd like to discuss it, then open a thread
Education and Creation/Evolution forum.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2