Real Science Radio: Plate Tectonics. Not.

[gcthomas]

That's your story and you're sticking to it, are you?

My story? That of every respectable geologist.

Have you a link to this description?

A link? Back to my own description? Just scroll back up a bit.
Or you could look Wikipedia, I expect, or any university's Geology Dept website. Google it? I'm sure you can manage.

What model?

Exactly; 'what model'! You have no alternative to the REAL description. Unless you want to lay claim to your "challenge" image in your post #77.

 

[Stripe]

My story? That of every respectable geologist.

Well, your story seemed to change quite dramatically without any warning. :idunno:

First you thought the change in topography was the cause. Now you have a different idea.

A link? Back to my own description? Just scroll back up a bit.
Or you could look Wikipedia, I expect, or any university's Geology Dept website. Google it? I'm sure you can manage.

I think you've sent us on a wild goose chase.

Exactly; 'what model'!

So what were you talking about then? :AMR:

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

This is Stripe's original statement:

When you double up on mass, the gravity should increase.

Now watch what he does here....

The gravity does increase, where the mass is being added, which is under the adjacent plate

Sure. But even the cause of that is unclear.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Are you on drugs? :AMR:


It's not contrary evidence, moron. I didn't deny the existence of a positive gravity anomaly.

That's not what it looks like, here.

Oh, OK. So you say there are two plates colliding. So where is your evidence for this.
Here is my evidence against (something I'm not obliged to provide).

The same evidence that I've been trying to get you to acknowledge for a week now.

No, there cannot be less mass. If it goes downward it simply becomes more compacted mass.

You can't possibly be this ignorant. I refuse to believe a grown adult, doesn't understand or remember basic geology concepts taught in grade-school. The crustal mass does not just indefinitely compress. It's a cyclic process; when the mass reaches the mantle it goes through metamorphism, the heat begins melting the rock and it rises as magma and deposits on the surface before cooling into solid rock again. This heating and cooling cycle is what drives the convection currents which in turn move the plates.

This is something you should have learned in 4th or 5th grade.

The gravity anomaly means the mass is missing where evolutionists say there are plates converging.

I'm not sure what your confusion is. No one seems to be surprised by the fact that there is less mass at a trench except for you. Are you confused as to how subduction would result in a trench?

 

[Stripe]

The crustal mass does not just indefinitely compress.

You're right! It can hardly compress at all! And when it does, it must be under the most extreme of conditions.

It's a cyclic process; when the mass reaches the mantle it goes through metamorphism, the heat begins melting the rock and it rises as magma and deposits on the surface before cooling into solid rock again. This heating and cooling cycle is what drives the convection currents which in turn move the plates.

That's nice. But the mass is still missing from below trenches.

I'm not sure what your confusion is. No one seems to be surprised by the fact that there is less mass at a trench except for you.

We aren't surprised. We're skeptical.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

You're right! It can hardly compress at all! And when it does, it must be under the most extreme of conditions.

That's nice. But the mass is still missing from below trenches.

Levin H.L. (2010) The Earth Through Time, 9th ed.,624 pp., John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Link

 

[Stripe]

Levin H.L. (2010) The Earth Through Time, 9th ed.,624 pp., John Wiley & Sons, Inc

OK. That sounds like the explanation you guys have to stick to now. Thanks. :up:

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

So now that we've established that the "evidence" brought up by your show doesn't actually challenge Plate Tectonics in any way, how about addressing the evidence I presented several pages ago?

 

[The Barbarian]

Well, that turned out different than Stripe hoped, didn't it?

 

[Stripe]

So now that we've established that the "evidence" brought up by your show doesn't actually challenge Plate Tectonics in any way, how about addressing the evidence I presented several pages ago?

:rotfl:

Typical evolutionist, always desperate to declare victory. Your explanation might stave off this lone challenge for a short time. How about the next one?

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

:rotfl:

Typical evolutionist

What, pray tell, does plate tectonics have to do with Evolution, besides the fact that both are well substantiated scientific theories. Again creationists are always trying to lump all of the science that they disagree with under the banner of "Evolutionism" so it appears as if they are just rejecting one science instead of the overwhelming vast array of scientific understanding, and the scientific method generally.

always desperate to declare victory. Your explanation might stave off this lone challenge for a short time. How about the next one?

Sounds like wishful thinking. Have you ever considered Stripe, that after relentlessly trying over and over again trying to find holes in Plate Tectonics, Evolution, or any other mainstream science that you dislike, and each time being met with an adequately substantiated explanation again and again, that this might be an indication that the thing you're trying to disprove might actually be true? Has this ever crossed your mind, I'm just curious. :think:

 

[The Barbarian]

Your explanation might stave off this lone challenge for a short time. How about the next one?

Same as it always goes. Batting practice.

 

[Stripe]

What, pray tell, does plate tectonics have to do with Evolution

They're both bunk. They're both the necessity of atheists. :idunno:

Again creationists are always trying to lump all of the science that they disagree with under the banner of "Evolutionism"

Well, to the evolutionist everything is evolution.

Sounds like wishful thinking. Have you ever considered Stripe, that after relentlessly trying over and over again trying to find holes in Plate Tectonics, Evolution, or any other mainstream science that you dislike, and each time being met with an adequately substantiated explanation again and again, that this might be an indication that the thing you're trying to disprove might actually be true? Has this ever crossed your mind, I'm just curious. :think:

Sure. I've heard some pretty good explanations in my time that have made me stop and reconsider what I believe. This ain't one of them, however. Now, were you going to move on or are you happy to revert to type?

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

They're both bunk. They're both the necessity of atheists.

If they are bunk you and other creationists have been unsuccessful in demonstrating so. As a point of fact, atheism has been around since at least Antiquity, well before evolution or plate tectonics were ever theorized. Even so, whether or not they are a boon to atheism is irrelevant to their veracity. This is however the real reason you reject them, isn't it?

Sure. I've heard some pretty good explanations in my time that have made me stop and reconsider what I believe. This ain't one of them, however. Now, were you going to move on or are you happy to revert to type?

Move on? Move on to what? You don't honestly expect me to make your arguments for you, do you? I've already given you incredible leeway in this debate, as it is. Normal debate format you would actually have to lead with some evidence, moreso than just "listen to this clip", so you need to present some of your own evidence for once.

 

[Stripe]

If they are bunk you and other creationists have been unsuccessful in demonstrating so. As a point of fact, atheism has been around since at least Antiquity, well before evolution or plate tectonics were ever theorized. Even so, whether or not they are a boon to atheism is irrelevant to their veracity. This is however the real reason you reject them, isn't it?

What? :AMR:

Move on? Move on to what?

Did you not listen to the rest of the show?

You don't honestly expect me to make your arguments for you, do you?

My arguments? No. But this thread is about the radio show you said you'd listened to. All the rest of the things we can move on to are in there. :up:

I've already given you incredible leeway in this debate, as it is.

:allsmile:

Normal debate format you would actually have to lead with some evidence, moreso than just "listen to this clip", so you need to present some of your own evidence for once.

Cry me a river. If you want to discuss something else, feel free to take up one of the many other threads I have presenting evidence. :up:

Just how much more wailing are you planning on doing before moving on to the next item?

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

All the rest of the things we can move on to are in there.

Good feel free to present one, then. It's your source and your argument, so you need to do the work. :thumb:

 

[Stripe]

Good feel free to present one, then. It's your source and your argument, so you need to do the work. :thumb:

All the work has been done. Read the OP if you need a recap. :thumb:

And you claim you've listened to the show. :thumb:

You've won the first point. If you wish to keep playing, perhaps you can win some more. :thumb:

Or you could keep wailing like a little girl. :down:

 

[Frayed Knot]

Your explanation might stave off this lone challenge for a short time. How about the next one?

"Maybe this pile of feces didn't stick to the wall, but just wait, and we'll throw another against the wall, and that one just might!"

 

[Stripe]

"Maybe this pile of feces didn't stick to the wall, but just wait, and we'll throw another against the wall, and that one just might!"

:allsmile:

Or maybe your arguments will continue to stack up and I'll be forced to concede every point.

Tempting, no?

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

All the work has been done. Read the OP if you need a recap. :thumb:

And you claim you've listened to the show. :thumb:

You've won the first point. If you wish to keep playing, perhaps you can win some more. :thumb:

This may be surprising to you, but if you make a claim and wish to defend it, this requires a little bit of effort on your behalf. :shocked:
If you want to point out something in particular from your show that you think is good evidence, I would be happy to go over it with you, although I won't have internet this weekend so keep that in mind.