Real Science Radio: Plate Tectonics. Not.

[Stripe]

Hey, how about addressing the argument that you said you would?

Why?

You've declared that your only reason for being here is to mock ideas you don't agree with. There's no point ever talking to you. :wave2:

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Why?

You've declared that your only reason for being here is to mock ideas you don't agree with. There's no point ever talking to you. :wave2:

I don't remember ever saying that. Although I do remember you saying that you were mocking me, and I also remember you saying that you would address my argument if I picked one of the "evidences" from your list and gave a refutation. It looks like you've developed cold feet now. I wonder why that is?

 

[Stripe]

Rock failure is determined by energy added and there is no time component.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Rock failure is determined by energy added and there is no time component.

No, I was referring to this.

 

[Stripe]

We're having a discussion. Feel free to join it rather than stamping your feet and demanding everyone talk about what you want to talk about. :up:

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

We're having a discussion. Feel free to join it rather than stamping your feet and demanding everyone talk about what you want to talk about. :up:

Who the heck is "we" the only people who have posted in this thread for days are you, I and Frayed knot, and neither of us said anything about rock pressure or time.

 

[Stripe]

I guess you win then.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

I guess you win then.

Finally concede that Plate tectonics continues to stack up with the evidence?

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Is that a 'Yes' then?

 

[Frayed Knot]

I have been. :idunno:

Through iTunes and Google Reader.

I don't use either iTunes or Google Reader for aggregating my podcasts - I use Downcast on my iPhone. The "Real Science Radio" is listed in the directory, but it points to http://feeds.feedburner.com/RealScienceFriday, and that link no longer works. It looks like Bob Enyart needs to update Feedburner with the new info.

I just found the updated address, it is http://kgov.com/real-science-radio/feed.

 

[Stripe]

I just found the updated address, it is http://kgov.com/real-science-radio/feed.

Ah, cool. Thanks. :up:

 

[badp]

I know what happens when I discuss evidence with you. You play your diversionary game, and do anything except acknowledge the evidence that I present, but if it'll shut you up here is evidence of Plate Tectonics:

-Fossil Distribution:

-Measured continental drift

-Matching Permo-Carboniferous glacial sediments

-Relative fit of continental coastlines

-Volcanic/seismic activity and plate boundaries

-Cross continental Glacial striation

-Polar wandering and Paleomagnetism

-Relative sea-floor age

-Gravity anomaly measurements

-Coral reefs off the coast of Antarctica

-Magnetic strips along oceanic ridges

Um.. that's not evidence of plate tectonics. That's evidence that the continents were once joined -- which YEC's already believe. By the way, plate tectonics theory relies on voodoo to make the continents move. Subduction by itself isn't enough to make it happen -- and even staunct billion-year-old-earther atheist geologists know that

Got anything else?

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Um.. that's not evidence of plate tectonics. That's evidence that the continents were once joined

...which plate tectonics proposes.


And that they move apart at a slow march as evidenced by:

Mid-oceanic magnetic reversal strips
Polar wandering
Glacial striation
Current measured rate of continental drift
Ocean floor dating
Comparative fossil distribution

which YEC's already believe.

Some.

By the way, plate tectonics theory relies on voodoo to make the continents move.

Perhaps if sufficiently advanced scientific concepts to you are indistinguishable from magic.

However for those that it is not the current available body of scientific evidence suggests that convection cells in the earth's lithosphere drive Ridge push, slab pull, and slab suction.

Seismotectonics of subducting lithosphere.

 

[badp]

...which plate tectonics proposes.

Irrelevant. The fact that a theory predicts something that turns out to be true does not mean the theory is true.

And that they move apart at a slow march as evidenced by:

Mid-oceanic magnetic reversal strips

This is a very generous intepretation. What is actualy measured is the strength of the magnetic field, notthe polarity. Using magnetic field strength/polarity indicators is hugely dependent upon the assumption that the changes occured over a long period of time -- which is just an assumption that is still waiting to be backed up by science.

Polar wandering
Glacial striation

These do not serve as time markers, which is the point you're trying to make. They just indicate movement.

Current measured rate of continental drift

The present = the past, you're saying?

Ocean floor dating

Based on what? Calibration curves? Debunked.

Comparative fossil distribution

Another assumption that relies on darwinian history.

Thus far you haven't offered evidence, but have only appealed to other theories which themselves lack evidence.

However for those that it is not the current available body of scientific evidence suggests that convection cells in the earth's lithosphere drive Ridge push, slab pull, and slab suction.
Seismotectonics of subducting lithosphere.

1987?? Regardless, the forces are still insufficient to explain the drift.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Irrelevant. The fact that a theory predicts something that turns out to be true does not mean the theory is true.

And in this case it predicted a lot of somethings that turned out to be true.

This is a very generous intepretation. What is actualy measured is the strength of the magnetic field, notthe polarity.

This is a bizarre denial. The polarity was absolutely determined.

Using magnetic field strength/polarity indicators is hugely dependent upon the assumption that the changes occured over a long period of time -- which is just an assumption that is still waiting to be backed up by science.

How many pole reversals exactly do you think there have been, and how often do you think this occurs? The sheer number of reversals alone would require the earth to have been a veritable strobe-light of magnetic reversals, which apparently went unnoticed by anyone ever.

These do not serve as time markers, which is the point you're trying to make. They just indicate movement.

They indicate a lot more than just movement. The speed, direction, size and composition at which a glacier moves impacts the sort of land features it creates and the sediment it leaves behind.

For instance Kames, kettle lakes, and Paternoster lakes are indicative of slow movement, allowing sediment or water to build up before the glacier advances or retreats more.

Additionally evidence of glacial grooves in the Sahara become difficult to explain in the short time frame YECs propose.

The present = the past, you're saying?

Given the physics of it, current movement rates establish a baseline of movement speeds, and good reason to doubt that they spontaneously moved hundreds of times faster than current rates without anyone noticing, and then slowed to an inching.

Based on what?

Isotopic clocks

Another assumption that relies on darwinian history.

What assumption, exactly? That certain continents share some fossils in common but not others? And that this is largely relegated to the strata in which they are found?

Thus far you haven't offered evidence, but have only appealed to other theories which themselves lack evidence.

Or rather you deny so much of mainstream science it's difficult to know what you will accept and what you won't.

Regardless, the forces are still insufficient to explain the drift.

For the apparent fact that you say so.

 

[Stripe]

Irrelevant. The fact that a theory predicts something that turns out to be true does not mean the theory is true.

PT did not predict continents that fit together. The shape of the continents sparked a search for an explanation. And continent fit is a myth anyway. A couple of serious distortions are done before the images we see are presented as evidence for continenal fit.

The Hydroplate theory does not consider continental fit. Instead, it considers the fit of Africa and the Americas against the mid-Atlantic ridge, which is an extremely close fit with no distortions necessary.

How many pole reversals exactly do you think there have been

None.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

None.

So which explanation are we going with. Did the rocks magnetize themselves in different directions, or is there a global conspiracy by geologists to lie about the data?

 

[Stripe]

So which explanation are we going with. Did the rocks magnetize themselves in different directions, or is there a global conspiracy by geologists to lie about the data?

Evolutionists love false dichotomies.

 

[Yorzhik]

So which explanation are we going with. Did the rocks magnetize themselves in different directions, or is there a global conspiracy by geologists to lie about the data?

The rocks aligned themselves with the poles that were next to them, not the magnetic lines of the earth because of the relative strengths of each.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

The rocks aligned themselves with the poles that were next to them, not the magnetic lines of the earth because of the relative strengths of each.

Except they aren't aligned with the poles that they are closest to. The geomagnetism is arrayed in alternating strips.