Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Wegener and Evidence for Continental Drift
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 181 of 189 (46367)
07-17-2003 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by edge
07-02-2003 12:26 AM


"Except that the premise was yours, not mine..."
--Its not the premise I am having trouble with. Its your saying that it is utter nonesense when you admittently don't know whether the premise is right or not. 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 say you don't either! So why is it then utter nonesense? Oh wait a sec, you don't know.
"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?? Surely you know the thickness of the rigid oceanic crust(which does not deform readily, even over geologic time) at ocean ridge centers... sure as heck isn't 200 km.
"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.
"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.
"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.
"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).
"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?
"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??
"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. "
--"Constructive criticism" indeed.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by edge, posted 07-02-2003 12:26 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Coragyps, posted 07-17-2003 6:42 PM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 187 by edge, posted 07-18-2003 11:43 AM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 188 by edge, posted 07-18-2003 2:33 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 189 (46368)
07-17-2003 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by NosyNed
07-03-2003 7:34 PM


Re: out of the blue
"I think it is worth copying because it makes a point rather clearly that I haven't seen expressed so well before.
Now, I'm going to nominate it for a post of the month."
--Right you are!!! Fantastic, I am very glad that at least one of us understands this. Mainly this part:
quote:
So, it's entirely consistent to accept a supernatural explanation as a possible explanation for something, and yet ask for scientific proof or evidence to support that possibility. Science does that all the time -- notes a phenomenon, posits an explanation for it, makes predictions for certain other observations based on the proposed explanation, then tests to see if those predictions are met or not. If so, the explanation gains a bit of credibility.....if not, the explanation is either modified or scrapped in favor of an explanation that IS consistent.
--Also, please note, just because one theory is more plausible than another, even enormously, other theories attempting to explain the same phenomena arent always dropped on their head. A good example is the capture theory for solar cosmogenesis as an alternative to the currently prevailing Nebula hypothesis.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by NosyNed, posted 07-03-2003 7:34 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by NosyNed, posted 07-17-2003 7:42 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 183 of 189 (46373)
07-17-2003 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by TrueCreation
07-17-2003 2:39 PM


Re: Geomagnetism and the age of the ocean floor
Hi, TC!
I'm afraid this is just getting to be too much work. I feel like I'm talking to my cleaning lady, who mostly speaks Portuguese:
Me: "My wife will call about the counters."
Her: "Your wife no call me."
Me: "No, I mean she's going to call you."
Her: "She never call, never."
Me: "But she will call, either tonight or tomorrow."
Her: "I no get any call."
Me: "But she will call."
Her: "So, you want windows washed?"
So I give up.
I'm beginning to feel the same way about you. It just takes too much work. If there's a way to fail to comprehend a point you can be trusted to find it.
The only reason my posts grew more lengthy and detailed was that I was operating under the delusion that you only a needed a little more explanation and information. But just getting you to understand an explanation (not agree with it, mind you, just understand it) is like having a conversation with some kind of bizarro character.
The important point that the detail was intended to get across is my original one, namely that different kinds of events leave different evidence. If there was a worldwide flood just a geological instant ago, there'd be evidence. And it would be different evidence than if there had never been any such flood. You're making the ridiculous argument that flood or not, the world would look just as it does today, and that there is therefore no evidence that would allow us to tell the difference.
You also seem to be operating under the strange belief that there's some kind of weird disconnect between the information in geology textbooks and the kind of hard data one might find in technical journals, and that therefore if the original data is unavailable (as it will inevitably be, since few of us are subscribers to these journals) you're free to ignore the textbooks and draw whatever conclusions you like.
Of course, I have no doubt these arguments will again be ignored or misconstrued, but at least they were short and so I haven't wasted much time.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by TrueCreation, posted 07-17-2003 2:39 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by TrueCreation, posted 07-17-2003 7:03 PM Percy has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 184 of 189 (46381)
07-17-2003 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by TrueCreation
07-17-2003 2:43 PM


The cooling problem is a topic if scientific research all on its own, so what are you talking about?
I would guess that 'the cooling problem' - cooling down a 3000-km thick slab of mantle enough to raise its viscosity a millionfold and stop the madness of 'runaway plate tectonics' in a year or two - need not be a topic of its own. I would think that about two equations on a blackboard somewhere dealing with heat conduction in rock would put that "problem" to bed. Maybe one equation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by TrueCreation, posted 07-17-2003 2:43 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 185 of 189 (46382)
07-17-2003 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Percy
07-17-2003 4:15 PM


Re: Geomagnetism and the age of the ocean floor
"The only reason my posts grew more lengthy and detailed was that I was operating under the delusion that you only a needed a little more explanation and information. But just getting you to understand an explanation (not agree with it, mind you, just understand it) is like having a conversation with some kind of bizarro character."
--Maybe its not that I don't understand it, but that I require much more data than would generally be expected to be presented in an internet forum before I start making my conclusions.
"The important point that the detail was intended to get across is my original one, namely that different kinds of events leave different evidence. If there was a worldwide flood just a geological instant ago, there'd be evidence. And it would be different evidence than if there had never been any such flood. You're making the ridiculous argument that flood or not, the world would look just as it does today, and that there is therefore no evidence that would allow us to tell the difference."
--I began this thread with a mind-set that ran accross this line, I agree and not just because it happened to be 'convenient' but because thats just what I thought was adequate given what I had previously researched. Though I have changed a bit to come to agree with you that there indeed will be significant differences between catastrophic and uniformitarian geology.
"You also seem to be operating under the strange belief that there's some kind of weird disconnect between the information in geology textbooks and the kind of hard data one might find in technical journals, and that therefore if the original data is unavailable (as it will inevitably be, since few of us are subscribers to these journals) you're free to ignore the textbooks and draw whatever conclusions you like."
--Its not that I think there is a disconnect between general textbooks in geology and the ever-so detailed information given in science journals. Its just that sometimes when the inquiry requires those specifics, that ever-so detailed information always looks appealing. The general textbooks arent to be ignored, its just that as far as I can see the relevant information isn't there to answer most of the recent questions presented in this thread.
--I will start a new thread soon for discussion ofo the geomagnetic analysis I've done if you'd like to join.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Percy, posted 07-17-2003 4:15 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Percy, posted 07-18-2003 7:16 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 186 of 189 (46384)
07-17-2003 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by TrueCreation
07-17-2003 2:44 PM


Re: out of the blue
Also, please note, just because one theory is more plausible than another, even enormously, other theories attempting to explain the same phenomena arent always dropped on their head. A good example is the capture theory for solar cosmogenesis as an alternative to the currently prevailing Nebula hypothesis.
I think this is a poor example, I am pretty sure (but not a cosmolgist( that the capture theory has been "dropped on it's head", completly.
When a new theory comes long it may not totally wipe out consideration of another one, but frequently the older one is shown to be false, period. Then it is dropped on it's head. The flood idea was shown to be false centuries ago.
As for you other comment and the copied paragraph
You need to note this from the preceding paragraph
"and you should be able to find scientific evidence for it because one can make certain predictions "
It seems that the evidence and predictions (that differ from "conventional" geology are missing here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by TrueCreation, posted 07-17-2003 2:44 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 187 of 189 (46434)
07-18-2003 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by TrueCreation
07-17-2003 2:43 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by TrueCreation, posted 07-17-2003 2:43 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 188 of 189 (46453)
07-18-2003 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by TrueCreation
07-17-2003 2:43 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by TrueCreation, posted 07-17-2003 2:43 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 189 of 189 (46470)
07-18-2003 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by TrueCreation
07-17-2003 7:03 PM


Re: Geomagnetism and the age of the ocean floor
TC writes:
Maybe its not that I don't understand it, but that I require much more data than would generally be expected to be presented in an internet forum before I start making my conclusions.
Or maybe it's that you really don't understand it. I offer your inability to comprehend the simple point that your views differ from Wegener's in that his had evidence and yours don't. You will again explain that CPT is compatible with Wegener's evidence for continental drift, thereby demonstrating once again your inability to comprehend simple points.
Though I have changed a bit to come to agree with you that there indeed will be significant differences between catastrophic and uniformitarian geology.
And those differences would be?
I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer.
Its not that I think there is a disconnect between general textbooks in geology and the ever-so detailed information given in science journals. Its just that sometimes when the inquiry requires those specifics, that ever-so detailed information always looks appealing.
I assume this means you've uncovered evidence driving your inquiry into why the textbook says what it does? And this evidence would be?
I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer.
I really hate seeing a nice kid like you wasting his time doing pseudoscience. Science involves evidence. Your speculations about a one-year acceleration of natural processes 5000 years ago are driven not by evidence but by Genesis. You must first find the evidence and only then build theories around it. While studiously *not* seeking evidence you're building theories that as much as possible are constructed to hide from evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by TrueCreation, posted 07-17-2003 7:03 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024