Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?

[iouae]

:darwinsm:

Which driving mechanism are you going to go with?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

I go with convection.

Are you going to nitpick over the process while ignoring the fact that there are well measured tectonic plates slipping around over the magma, forming mountains like the Himalayas (which are still rising), creating earthquakes and volcanoes at the edges of the plates.

Do you doubt that sea crust is thin and forming at the mid-oceanic ridges, while the ocean crust moves apart from these ridges locking into its solidifying rock, the current earth's magnetic field? New crust is forming at the ridges. Do you doubt this?

I am not going to nitpick over the process, because nobody nitpicks over the process of how Christ's blood manages to cover sins.

 

[Stripe]

I go with convection.

You promise?

When I describe how convection can't happen below about 400km, will you doubt the PT explanation, or will you just dig your heels in?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[iouae]

You promise?

When I describe how convection can't happen below about 400km, will you doubt the PT explanation, or will you just dig your heels in?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

I can see you are hell bent on nitpicking, while ignoring the fact that the plates ARE moving.

I have zero interest in discussing the mechanism, because neither you or I geophysicists - but all of us can work a GPS and see that the plates ARE moving.

 

[Stripe]

I have zero interest in discussing the mechanism, because neither you or I geophysicists.

:darwinsm:

:mock: Vowels.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[iouae]

:darwinsm:

:mock: Vowels.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

I don't believe you know enough to have an intelligent conversation on the subject of plate tectonics. But maybe I am mistaken. Wow us with your knowledge of earth's mantle.

Let's start with the crust being from 5-75 km thick, being thinnest on either side of the mid-ocean ridges.

Why on earth should I care if you can prove that "convection can't happen below about 400km". Prove that convection cannot occur at just below the crust or >5km down.

 

[Stripe]

Why on earth should I care if you can prove that "convection can't happen below about 400km". Prove that convection cannot occur at just below the crust or >5km down.

:chuckle:

Because the mantle is nearly 3,000km deep and the forces needed to shove continents along are extraordinary. Convection in the top 5km is meaningless.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[iouae]

:chuckle:

Because the mantle is nearly 3,000km deep and the forces needed to shove continents along are extraordinary. Convection in the top 5km is meaningless.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Well there, you virtually proved my assertion that this discussion is pointless. I am only interested in movement of the few km or two of plastic magma below the solid moving crust since this moving magma moves the continents.

But don't mind me, please go on and wow us with your knowledge of what moves magma.

Convection under the crust is due to uneven heating of parts of earth's mantle, in particular under the mid-ocean ridges.

They are able to measure mantle temperature, and it is hottest here. I don't know why, and I don't really care. FACT are FACTS, there ARE areas under the crust of higher temperature than other places.

I could research it, but I presume you have. So explain why there are hot spots. I am all ears.

 

[Stuu]

Because the mantle is nearly 3,000km deep and the forces needed to shove continents along are extraordinary. Convection in the top 5km is meaningless.

Sea floor is dense, and sinks in a subduction zone, pulling the plate along with it. The sinking of the lithosphere and convection processes interact to depths of several hundreds of kilometres, where there are subduction zone earthquakes still happening (as deep as 670km), indicating a very deep drop of subducted plate material, probably as far as the core-mantle boundary.

And we haven't even mentioned plumes yet!

Stuart

 

[Jose Fly]

:rotfl:

Were you born this stupid, or did you have to work at it?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Well, so much for that whole "discussing evidence" thing you're always harping on. But then, what else can one expect from someone who thinks the geologic column was ginned up by time-travelling "Darwinists"? :chuckle:

 

[Stripe]

Sea floor is dense, and sinks in a subduction zone, pulling the plate along with it. The sinking of the lithosphere and convection processes interact to depths of several hundreds of kilometres, where there are subduction zone earthquakes still happening (as deep as 670km), indicating a very deep drop of subducted plate material, probably as far as the core-mantle boundary.

And we haven't even mentioned plumes yet!

Stuart

We know. Darwinists can't agree on a mechanism. :chuckle:

Well, so much for that whole "discussing evidence" thing you're always harping on.

We notice you're not interested in it.

But then, what else can one expect from someone who thinks the geologic column was ginned up by time-travelling "Darwinists"? :chuckle:

:yawn:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Jose Fly]

We notice you're not interested in it.

Sure I am.

Let's see your evidence regarding: 1) the geologic column being an invention of "Darwinists", 2) science confirming that Neandertals are descendants of the first Adam, 3) the amount of energy required to move continental plates 55 mph, and 4) how it's possible to tell from DNA that two organisms are of the same type.

 

[iouae]

We know. Darwinists can't agree on a mechanism. :chuckle:

We notice you're not interested in it.

:yawn:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Stripe, let's summarise what you believe regarding tectonic plates...

you: "We'll take your tu quoque fallacy as a tacit admission that Darwinists can't agree on the driving force behind PT."

So what?

me: "Continents are moving apart from mid oceanic ridges - do you dispute this fact?"
you: "Yes. Plate movement tends to be toward the Pacific Ocean."

That's nonsense. What does it even mean that plates move towards the Pacific. Utter nonsense, and out of touch with the FACT that they move away from mid ocean ridges.

you: "You could put stakes either side of a purported spreading center and tie a rope between them and wait. You would never see any tightening. The only changes to the tightness would be due to earthquakes."

Again utterly unfactual. A rope would snap, and yes, the movement might be by a series of small earthquakes, but so what?


me: "There are symmetrical reversals of magnetism either side of mid-oceanic ridges - do you dispute this fact?"
you: "Yes."

Get an education!


me: "Magma is welling up at the mid oceanic ridges - do you dispute this fact?"
you: Yes. "There is magma all over the place. There's nothing particularly special about a ridge in this respect."

And you claimed you could educate us on the mechanism that drives plates, when you have no clue as to the easy stuff - which is the measurable movement of the plates.

Get an education (non-home schooled preferably) and wake up and smell the FACTS.

 

[Stuu]

We know. Darwinists can't agree on a mechanism.

You don't appear to know which branch of science studies plate tectoncs.

Stuart

 

[JudgeRightly]

You don't appear to know which branch of science studies plate tectoncs.

Stuart

So you can't have a darwinist geologist? :think:

 

[Stripe]

Sure I am.

Let's see your evidence regarding: 1) the geologic column being an invention of "Darwinists", 2) science confirming that Neandertals are descendants of the first Adam, 3) the amount of energy required to move continental plates 55 mph, and 4) how it's possible to tell from DNA that two organisms are of the same type.

1: :yawn:
2: DNA.
3: Mountain ranges.
4: Same number of chromosomes.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

Stripe, let's summarise what you believe regarding tectonic plates...

you: "We'll take your tu quoque fallacy as a tacit admission that Darwinists can't agree on the driving force behind PT."

So what?

me: "Continents are moving apart from mid oceanic ridges - do you dispute this fact?"
you: "Yes. Plate movement tends to be toward the Pacific Ocean."

That's nonsense. What does it even mean that plates move towards the Pacific. Utter nonsense, and out of touch with the FACT that they move away from mid ocean ridges.

you: "You could put stakes either side of a purported spreading center and tie a rope between them and wait. You would never see any tightening. The only changes to the tightness would be due to earthquakes."

Again utterly unfactual. A rope would snap, and yes, the movement might be by a series of small earthquakes, but so what?


me: "There are symmetrical reversals of magnetism either side of mid-oceanic ridges - do you dispute this fact?"
you: "Yes."

Get an education!


me: "Magma is welling up at the mid oceanic ridges - do you dispute this fact?"
you: Yes. "There is magma all over the place. There's nothing particularly special about a ridge in this respect."

And you claimed you could educate us on the mechanism that drives plates, when you have no clue as to the easy stuff - which is the measurable movement of the plates.

Get an education (non-home schooled preferably) and wake up and smell the FACTS.

:darwinsm:

:mock: Vowels

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stuu]

So you can't have a darwinist geologist? :think:

The mechanisms of plate tectonics are not the same as Darwinian natural selection, as far as I know. Can you enlighten me any further on that?

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

4: Same number of chromosomes.

So, by this claim of yours, the data in the Holy Wikipedia says that humans are the same as sable antelopes, Reeves's muntjac, and a species of amphipod crustacean called parhyale hawaiensis.

How crustacean are you feeling today, Stripe?

Stuart

 

[JudgeRightly]

So, by this claim of yours, the data in the Holy Wikipedia says that humans are the same as sable antelopes, Reeves's muntjac, and a species of amphipod crustacean called parhyale hawaiensis.

How crustacean are you feeling today, Stripe?

Stuart

Which kind of goes against your position that chimps are related to humans but Neandertal isn't, and that whole tree of life (or is it a shrub?) seems to be thrown out the window...

You're sort of begging the question here, Stuart. The evidence (which is that chimps have 48 chromosomes whereas humans and neandertals have 46, and as you brought up, that crustacean also has 46) according to you would have chimps be far more distant relatives to humans than that sea creature, which obviously doesn't make any sense. So, either your position that chimps and humans are closely related and neandertals are not human is wrong, or we're more closely related to a crustacean and neandertal than to a chimp.

If I found out my entire paradigm of beliefs were wrong, I'd be a bit crabby too... (yes, pun intended)

 

[Stuu]

Which kind of goes against your position that chimps are related to humans but Neandertal isn't, and that whole tree of life (or is it a shrub?) seems to be thrown out the window...

You're sort of begging the question here, Stuart. The evidence (which is that chimps have 48 chromosomes whereas humans and neandertals have 46, and as you brought up, that crustacean also has 46) according to you would have chimps be far more distant relatives to humans than that sea creature, which obviously doesn't make any sense. So, either your position that chimps and humans are closely related and neandertals are not human is wrong, or we're more closely related to a crustacean and neandertal than to a chimp.

If I found out my entire paradigm of beliefs were wrong, I'd be a bit crabby too... (yes, pun intended)

Were you under the impression that I thought Stripe had made a relevant point?

To help you rethink your post, all the great apes have 48 chromosomes except humans. Our chromosome No.2 is the result of the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes, as documented here.

Stuart