Re: Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 5
- From: "Kermit" <unrestrained_hand@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 27 Jun 2006 07:26:23 -0700
allanm wrote:
don findlay wrote:
Mission Impossible - Convection.
Plate Tectonics' story. Think about it.
1. A whirling mass of space dust, planetoids and planetisimals
gravitational coalesce in a cataclysm of impacts and heat generation.
2. The mass incandesces.
3. Using up the heat as it cools down, this mass differentiates and
forms a crust.
OK thus far? Y/N? So, ..
3. It's used up its heat to do that - make a crust and differentiate
it. It doesn't matter how many sources of heat remaining are intrisic
to the earth, there will not be enough left over to break the crust up
and destroy the products of convection.
Surely intrinsic and residual heat matter greatly. If the earth were
too cool it would be solid right the way through and there could be no
convection. If it were powered by its own fusion reactor there would be
bags of convection and precious little crust. It must be
Goldilocks-porridge-just-right for consistency with the phenomena we
detect. Which isn't all that surprising - the planet wasn't created in
order to be just right for Plate Tectonics, but a floating crust is a
consequence of the planet's present state. We know there's crust. We
know the mantle is fluid (seismic transmission data - and volcanoes,
FFS). We can see much evidence of isostatic rebound, strongly
indicative of floating. We can see crust moving, real-time.
If there were, why would it
ever have formed a crust in the first place?
What's difficult about this? Surely this is common sense?
What convection-leg is plate tectonics standing on?
Count strike 5.
OK, you are big on mechanism - how does the earth expand? Does matter
get inside from outside or does it arise from within? Is there an
increase in mass? Would such an increase in mass lead to a different
orbit, or a change in velocity at the same orbit? Is the crustal
expansion achieved by insertion of igneous rock only, or sedimentary?
What is the distribution of such rocks across the various plate sutures?
Don considers these details to be trivial matters for future, lesser
minds to work out. He has presented us with the big picture - he looks
at a globe, and sees that the Earth has obviously expanded. And please
do not try to evade the issue by asking for measurements and math; he
has bigger fish to fry.
I note that he cherry picks the data, presenting examples which - if
you look at it sideways and squint one eye, and know no geology - can
seem to support his ideas. Of course, you have to ignore the vast
majority of available evidence to do so. As with creationists, it is
difficult to tell if he knows he is doing this, or if he is the first
(and last) victim of his deception.
Kermit
.
- Prev by Date: Re: The ToE is *useless redux.
- Next by Date: Re: William Dembski's evolving ID definition
- Previous by thread: William Dembski's evolving ID definition
- Next by thread: Here kitty kitty kitty!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
