New study reveals insights on plate tectonics

Mar 04, 2014
Asthenosphere and lithospheric plate: The Earth’s outer layer is broken into moving, interacting plates whose motion at the surface generates most earthquakes, creates volcanoes and builds mountains. In this image, the orange layer represents the deformable, warm asthenosphere in which there is active mantle flow. The green layer is the lithospheric plate, which forms at the mid ocean ridge, then cools down and thickness as it moves away from the ridge. The cooling of the plate overprints a compositional boundary that forms at the ridge by dehydration melting and is preserved as the plate ages. The more easily deformable, hydrated rocks align with mantle flow. The directions of past and present-day mantle flow can be detected by seismic waves, and changes in the alignment of the rocks inside and at the bottom of the plate can be used to identify layering.

(Phys.org) —The Earth's outer layer is made up of a series of moving, interacting plates whose motion at the surface generates earthquakes, creates volcanoes and builds mountains. Geoscientists have long sought to understand the plates' fundamental properties and the mechanisms that cause them to move and drift, and the questions have become the subjects of lively debate.

A study published online Feb. 27 by the journal Science is a significant step toward answering those questions.

Researchers led by Caroline Beghein, assistant professor of , planetary and space sciences in UCLA's College of Letters and Science, used a technique called seismic tomography to study the structure of the Pacific Plate—one of eight to 12 major plates at the surface of the Earth. The technique enabled them to determine the plate's thickness, and to image the interior of the plate and the underlying mantle (the layer between the Earth's crust and outer core), which they were able to relate to the direction of flow of rocks in the mantle.

"Rocks deform and flow slowly inside the Earth's mantle, which makes the plates move at the surface," said Beghein, the paper's lead author. "Our research enables us to image the interior of the plate and helps us figure out how it formed and evolved." The findings might apply to other oceanic plates as well.

Even with the new findings, Beghein said, the of plates "are still somewhat enigmatic."

Seismic tomography is similar to commonly used medical imaging techniques like computed tomography, or CT, scans. But instead of using X-rays, seismic tomography employs recordings of the seismic waves generated by earthquakes, allowing scientists to detect variations in the speed of seismic waves inside the Earth. Those variations can reveal different layers within the mantle, and can help scientists determine the temperature and chemistry of the mantle rocks by comparing observed variations in wave speed with predictions from other types of geophysical data.

Seismologists often use other types of seismic data to identify this layering: They detect seismic waves that bounce off the interface that separates two layers. In their study, Beghein and co-authors compared the layering they observed using seismic tomography with the layers revealed by these other types of data. Comparing results from the different methods is a continuing challenge for geoscientists, but it is an important part of helping them understand the Earth's structure.

"We overcame this challenge by trying to push the observational science to the highest resolutions, allowing us to more readily compare observations across datasets," said Nicholas Schmerr, the study's co-author and an assistant research scientist in geology at the University of Maryland.

The researchers were the first to discover that the Pacific Plate is formed by a combination of mechanisms: The plate thickens as the rocks of the mantle cool, the chemical makeup of the rocks that form the plate changes with depth, and the mechanical behavior of the rocks change with depth and their proximity to where the plate is being formed at the mid-ocean ridge.

"By modeling the behavior of seismic waves in Earth's mantle, we discovered a transition inside the plate from the top, where the rocks didn't deform or flow very much, to the bottom of the plate, where they are more strongly deformed by tectonic forces," Beghein said. "This transition corresponds to a boundary between the layers that we can image with seismology and that we attribute to changes in rock composition."

Oceanic plates form at ocean ridges and disappear into the Earth's mantle, a process known as subduction. Among geoscientists, there is still considerable debate about what drives this evolution. Beghein and her research team advanced our understanding of how oceanic plates form and evolve as they age by using and comparing two sets of ; the study revealed the presence of a compositional boundary inside the plate that appears to be linked to the formation of the plate itself.

Explore further: Is there an ocean beneath our feet?

More information: "Changes in Seismic Anisotropy Shed Light on the Nature of the Gutenberg Discontinuity." Caroline Beghein, Kaiqing Yuan, Nicholas Schmerr, and Zheng Xing. Science 1246724. Published online 27 February 2014. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1246724]

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Is there an ocean beneath our feet?

Jan 27, 2014

(Phys.org) —Scientists at the University of Liverpool have shown that deep sea fault zones could transport much larger amounts of water from the Earth's oceans to the upper mantle than previously thought.

Looking inside the Earth

Apr 23, 2012

(Phys.org) -- Defects found in rocks below the Earth’s surface have a major impact on the transmission of seismic waves, such as those caused by earthquakes, researchers at The Australian National University ...

Systematic shifts in subducting slab behavior with depth

Feb 14, 2014

When tectonic plates collide, the less buoyant plate will, in some cases, be forced beneath the other. At such subduction zones the sinking tectonic plate, known as a slab, does not follow a simple path from the surface to ...

Recommended for you

Scientists make strides in tsunami warning since 2004

Dec 19, 2014

The 2004 tsunami led to greater global cooperation and improved techniques for detecting waves that could reach faraway shores, even though scientists still cannot predict when an earthquake will strike.

Trade winds ventilate the tropical oceans

Dec 19, 2014

Long-term observations indicate that the oxygen minimum zones in the tropical oceans have expanded in recent decades. The reason is still unknown. Now scientists at the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research ...

User comments : 167

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Scroofinator
1 / 5 (13) Mar 04, 2014
My question is this: How does plate tectonics explain the initial cause of continental drift?

I believe the Hydroplate theory more accurately describes what we actually observe today.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (12) Mar 04, 2014
Nor those who may not know, Hydroplate theory (http://www.creati...w2.html) is a creationist construct suggesting that current plate motions arose as a result of Noah's biblical flood. In essence, the theory suggests that when the flood waters burst forth from the Earth, it broke apart the plates we now see and set them adrift upon the fires of the underworld, and those fires are what cause the continents to move today.

I'm guessing no one will need to guess at my opinion of the theory!
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (14) Mar 04, 2014
It may be a creationist theory, but that doesn't make it any less valid.

The actual theory is there was a large reservoir of water(recently verified) underneath pangea(also assumed in plate tectonics) and the immense pressure was eventually released through the cracks that ended up forming the continents. When pangea split apart the continents moved fast until they came to rest approximately where they are today.Due to the huge amount of water getting put into the atmosphere, it rained down for the duration of the flood. It wasn't a result of the flood, rather the flood was a result of the separation of pangea.

I'm not quite sure where this "fires of the underworld" comes from, as that isn't a part of Walt Brown's theory. I think that's just you mainstream followers adding in stuff to make it sound crazy.

Back to the original question that you blatantly overlooked: How does plate tectonics describe the splitting of pangea?
shavera
5 / 5 (13) Mar 04, 2014
Scroof, you're overlooking the much longer history of the Earth. There were continents that merged to form pangea. And they broke free from older supercontinents. In fact continents seem to have cycled between breaking apart and then moving back together. (which, like... duh. the Earth's a sphere afterall.)

In the beginning was the Earth, a big ol' ball of molten rocks and metals. Now since liquids can flow, some lighter materials floated towards the surface more strongly. This forms the (less dense) continental crust, and the (more dense) oceanic crust. Over time, convection has brought more continental crust to the surface and the continents grew into many continental plates. They would scrape continental pieces off of oceanic crusts (like volcanic arcs in the ocean), and the oceanic crust subducts into the mantle where it melts to be released to the surface again.

The heat of the Earth is what got the continents moving in the first place. It's not like science doesn't know that.
shavera
5 / 5 (12) Mar 04, 2014
And how to continents/supercontinents split? Well they rift. We have a live example today in the East African Rift. But we have many other failed rifts. Lake Superior? It's so huge and deep because it's a failed rift, a place where the continent tried to pull itself apart. Convection in the mantle sometimes applies forces to break continental plates apart. I mean especially supercontinents, you have this huge imbalance of rock mass, where a big "lid" of continental crust is sitting atop the mantle. The mantle responds by heating and weakening the crust and breaking it up.

Really. The world is a fantastically interesting place if you try to learn _what we already know_ about it, rather than inventing new fantasies to explain things.
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (12) Mar 04, 2014
It may be a creationist theory, but that doesn't make it any less valid.

@Scroof
sorry. This is where you are wrong
any hypothetical construct that molds data to fit a religious philosophy is wrong from the start, for one

for two- any philosophy/construct that ignores relevant data because it does not agree with their religion is wrong

most importantly, RELIGION has NO PLACE IN SCIENCE
just because YOU believe does not mean everyone does
you are assuming that all religions are wrong BUT yours, which is like saying all turds smell like crap but yours
your assumptions (about your theory) are based upon a fallacy of dogmatic interpretation and not about reality and observations or empirical data as used by science

therefore, there is no reason to repeat the philosophy (it is not science) as it is not empirical

it is altered by belief that selectively chooses what data to use and what to ignore, so it can never be considered science
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 04, 2014
How does plate tectonics describe the splitting of pangea?

@Scroof
really?
Surely you didnt post this without researching it first?
Start here:

http://geography....ent1.htm

When you get done, then try again...

but leave the religion out of it. There is no place for it in Science. If you want to have your faith, fine... but it explains nothing as it offers NO EMPIRICAL DATA
Scroofinator
1.1 / 5 (14) Mar 04, 2014
In fact continents seem to have cycled between breaking apart and then moving back together.

This is a new idea to me. Your saying there is actually some evidence for this? I would love to see it.
In the beginning was the Earth, a big ol' ball of molten rocks and metals.

So where did the water come from? Oh right, billions of comets. Unlikely. A more likely scenario would be the impact that formed the moon was actually a large icy body. When everything settled down on the surface the vast majority of the continental crust would merge together into one super continent due to gravity. Then, over time, the pressure of the water between the crusts split the continent apart. All of this is completely logical to someone not indoctrinated in the dogmas of mainstream science.

Tectonics as they function today are correct, but today we see the effects, not the cause.

Also, I want to point out I don't think the split happened 4000 years ago, but hundreds of thousand years ago.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (12) Mar 04, 2014
It may be a creationist theory, but that doesn't make it any less valid.
Well actually, yes it does. Stumpy covers this. so I'll not say more.
This is a new idea to me. Your saying there is actually some evidence for this? I would love to see it.
Yea lots of it. Its thought the continents have come together and made at least three supercontinents that I can think of off the top of my head; Pangea, Gonwana and Rodinea. (spelling may be off too lol!)

sahvera has it absolutely right, there is gigaquads of material on this stuff, just run a google search on supercontinents and start reading.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (13) Mar 04, 2014
@Capn
Hydroplate theory isn't a construct designed to fit a religious philosophy, it just so happens to correlate with it. Saying science and religion don't belong together is like saying religion and politics don't belong together. Maybe they don't, but religion has it's influences on both, regardless what an atheist wants to believe.

Like I just said to shavera, tectonics accurately describes what we see occurring TODAY. But there is no empirical data to prove that's how it was millions of years ago, that's a belief. Hell, even pangea isn't a proven theory, just assumed. It's a cause and effect thing.

All I'm saying is that there are things that tectonics can't adequately explain, and the hydroplate theory can. If you honestly, and objectively, research the theory (start here http://www.creati...3.html), then you will find much of it makes sense.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (10) Mar 04, 2014
So where did the water come from? Oh right, billions of comets. Unlikely.
On what basis do you reject this theory?
A more likely scenario would be the impact that formed the moon was actually a large icy body.
Why do you say "more likely"?
When everything settled down on the surface the vast majority of the continental crust would merge together into one super continent due to gravity.
How would gravity do this?
All of this is completely logical to someone not indoctrinated in the dogmas of mainstream science.
Oh, well then, why are you asking then?

Also, I want to point out I don't think the split happened 4000 years ago, but hundreds of thousand years ago.
How about billions and hundreds of millions?

You know, if you stop acting like a spoiled child, you might learn some neat stuff.

Caliban
5 / 5 (12) Mar 04, 2014
My question is this: How does plate tectonics explain the initial cause of continental drift?

I believe the Hydroplate theory more accurately describes what we actually observe today.


@Scroofinator,

I haven't downranked your posts, because your misconceptions seem to arise from actual ignorance of the facts, as opposed to mere ideological bias.
Since you appear to be sincere in your desire for knowledge, yet lack the ever-so-useful scientific underpinnings necessary to understand plate tectonics(and therefore I assume the educational background), please allow me to direct you to a wonderful resource, written for those interested in this area: "The Earth: An Intimate History" by Richard Fortey.

This is a very interesting and entertaining account of how the science of Geology evolved and the concept of Plate Tectonics came to be developed over the last 200 years. Check it out from your library.

Entertaining AND instructive. That is a world-class bargain.

Scroofinator
1.1 / 5 (10) Mar 04, 2014
@mags
Real big of you. I see I struck a nerve somewhere. Is it the one who asks logical questions or the one who name calls the child?

The reason I find a large icy body impact more logical is because we have proof that some large impact did occur, all you would have to do is assume it was icy and you have an easy theory for the unexplained water(http://www.univer...earth/).
How would gravity do this?

Does gravity not pull mass together when in a medium in which it can freely flow?

As far as the time this happened, who cares about the actual time frame. I was just pointing out that it wasn't 4000 years ago as Ken Ham creation states, that's just stupid.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (10) Mar 04, 2014
I also find it humorous that everyone here thinks I'm unaware of plate tectonics. It's not that hard to understand, I firmly grasp the underpinnings of the theory. I just don't believe that it's the whole story.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 04, 2014
@mags
Real big of you. I see I struck a nerve somewhere. Is it the one who asks logical questions or the one who name calls the child?
**Sigh** I guess we differ in our definition of logical. Perhaps if you were to lower the amount of snide innuendo in your comments, you wouldn't come across so crass. Do you know what a leading question is?
The reason I find a large icy body impact more logical is because we have proof that some large impact did occur, all you would have to do is assume it was icy and you have an easy theory for the unexplained water
Your link 404ed so I can't see it; however, I am well acquainted with the lunar impactor theory, assuming that is what you linked to. If anything, there is more proof of smaller impacts, but I digress; the impact you speak of occurred 4 billion years ago or so. So where did the water on the impactor come from?
Nik_2213
5 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2014
IIRC, the super-continental make / break / make / break sequence is called the Wilson Cycle.

I should mention that the 'deep water' is not an aquifer or lake, but slightly more hydrated minerals than predicted. Don't forget that subduction has been carrying wet mud and hydrated minerals down for aeons. Initial degassing / de-watering produces a line of volcanoes, but where does the rest go ? Please also remember that any Moon-forming impact would have flashed on-board ice to steam --if not plasma-- rather than bury it.

Getting off topic, but didn't a slab of cuneiform recently turn up with a clearer version of the Gilgamesh 'Flood' legend ? Utnapishtim (sic) built a raft with a hut... and when the storm from the South blew out after a week, there were mountains on the horizon. Job done.

Actually, it fits a big Tropical Cyclone that goes off track into the Gulf. Rare, but surely a 'Perfect Storm' for the area. Hardly global, of course, of course.
Scroofinator
1.4 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2014
I was unaware that I was inserting "snide innuendo" in my comments, and even though I'm not quite sure of what your specifically talking about(other than the atheist comment), sorry. That's not my intention, nor is it how I like to discuss topics.

The water would have come from the same place the water on Europa would have come from, or any of the other icy bodies or comets for that matter. Basically, from somewhere outside of the sun's frost line.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2014
IIRC, the super-continental make / break / make / break sequence is called the Wilson Cycle.
Not quite - the making/destruction of ocean basins is the Wilson Cycle. Simplified, hot magma rises at the divergent crust boundaries and subducts at convergent crust boundaries.

As to the slab of cuneiform - if you can find the link post it, that would be an interesting read!
Caliban
5 / 5 (9) Mar 04, 2014
I also find it humorous that everyone here thinks I'm unaware of plate tectonics. It's not that hard to understand, I firmly grasp the underpinnings of the theory. I just don't believe that it's the whole story.


Read the book, as it is pretty clear that your understanding has some pretty big holes in it --including you assumption that additional water had to be brought to earth for tectonics to be initiated. Water is an abundant material in the dust and debris that constitute the protoplanetary disc --no comets or Moon-making iceballs are required to make the conditions possible.

You need to address these deficiencies in your understanding before making any further antiscience comments here, if you wish to be taken seriously.
Scroofinator
1.7 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2014
Please also remember that any Moon-forming impact would have flashed on-board ice to steam --if not plasma-- rather than bury it.

True, immediately after the impact it would be steam, and it would eventually condensate into water after a time. It wouldn't have "buried" from the impact, but rather from the forming of continents on top of the water in the giant soup of matter/water that the earth's surface would have been.

Hardly global, of course, of course.


Yet, there are global ancient accounts of flood stories. Perhaps the human genus is much older then science would tell us. We did recently find footprints of humans dating to 800,000 years in England.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2014
The water would have come from the same place the water on Europa would have come from, or any of the other icy bodies or comets for that matter. Basically, from somewhere outside of the sun's frost line.
Well ok, except that leads us back to the same question, only substituting Europa for Theia (Theia is what that Mars-sized impactor you mentioned has been named). So lets try this from a different angle. As ice forms in the area past the early Sun's ice line, what do you think it is doing? At the distance of the Earth from the early Sun, is it not inside of the ice line? As Theia formed in the same area, where would it get it's ice, and why wouldn't Earth get it at the same time?
Scroofinator
1.2 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2014
@Caliban
Water was not present on early earth, it was delivered here, somehow. That is an accepted fact. Whether most it came from one giant impact or billions of smaller ones, the point remains that earth's water did not form on earth.
Scroofinator
1.6 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2014
As Theia formed in the same area


This is not known, it's just the current accepted theory. The fact is, we don't truly know where this body came from, nor can we since we weren't there to witness it. Is it that hard to believe that an icy Theia sized object, like many other comets or asteroids, had it's orbit deflected into a collision course with the earth?
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2014
@Caliban
Water was not present on early earth, it was delivered here, somehow. That is an accepted fact. Whether most it came from one giant impact or billions of smaller ones, the point remains that earth's water did not form on earth.
Are you sure? On what basis do you make this claim?

I'm not trying to be hard on you scroof, I'm suggesting we need to take a look at some of your assumptions before taking this too much further.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2014
As Theia formed in the same area


This is not known, it's just the current accepted theory. The fact is, we don't truly know where this body came from, nor can we since we weren't there to witness it. Is it that hard to believe that an icy Theia sized object, like many other comets are asteroids, had it's orbit deflected into a collision course with the earth?
Well actually, for the Earth/Moon system, yes it is. The reason is that for the collision to have resulted in the Earth/Moon system we now enjoy, Theia had to have come into collision with the Earth at some pretty specific speeds and angles. This precludes Thiea having been flung into the Earth from an encounter with an outer planet, as it would have been moving too fast.
Scroofinator
1.4 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2014
Are you sure? On what basis do you make this claim?


This is a bit surprising to me. Of all the wild things I've said, this is the one that I thought was most commonly known/accepted. Since my last link 404d, just google "where did earths water come from". There's plenty of links to confirm the claim.
Scroofinator
1.3 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2014
as it would have been moving too fast.

While I've never personally done the calculations, I find it hard to believe there is no scenario in which this collision wouldn't have resulted in an earth/moon formation. Maybe the icy body caught the earth from behind just before perihelion, when the earth would be traveling the fastest.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2014
Are you sure? On what basis do you make this claim?


This is a bit surprising to me. Of all the wild things I've said, this is the one that I thought was most commonly known/accepted. Since my last link 404d, just google "where did earths water come from". There's plenty of links to confirm the claim.
Confirm the claim? There are a number of scenarios whereby the Earth may have gained it's oceans. You've mentioned the Sun's ice line, but let me ask you, where do you think that is? And do you think it may have moved? What about when the Sun was a protostar? What about its T-Tauri stage?
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2014
as it would have been moving too fast.

While I've never personally done the calculations, I find it hard to believe there is no scenario in which this collision wouldn't have resulted in an earth/moon formation. Maybe the icy body caught the earth from behind just before perihelion, when the earth would be traveling the fastest.
No scenarios? I didn't say that, but I quibble. Let's call it the most likely scenario.

At some point after the Theia/Gaia collision, the late heavy bombardment period occurred. Maybe the water came then?
Scroofinator
2 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2014
What do you mean "Earth may have gained it's oceans"? Why wouldn't Mars have also "gained oceans"?
You've mentioned the Sun's ice line, but let me ask you, where do you think that is? And do you think it may have moved? What about when the Sun was a protostar? What about its T-Tauri stage?

None of this is relevant. Who cares where it is, or where it was. We know ice formed at some point in the solar system, that's all that matters.
Scroofinator
1.2 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2014
At some point after the Theia/Gaia collision, the late heavy bombardment period occurred. Maybe the water came then?


Maybe, but that would assume that the Moon/Mars/Venus would all have an equally likely chance of having large oceans(or at least some form of water), yet that is not what we've observed. Venus is kind of an oddball there since now it's too hot for liquid water, but none the less in that scenario there would still be much more water vapor in the atmosphere.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2014
Maybe, but that would assume that the Moon/Mars/Venus would all have an equally likely chance of having large oceans(or at least some form of water), yet that is not what we've observed. Venus is kind of an oddball there since now it's too hot for liquid water, but none the less in that scenario there would still be much more water vapor in the atmosphere.
Again, are you sure? Do you know what atmospheric sputtering is? Why is Venus rotating backwards? Is Mars large enough to have held water? Does Mars have a large amount (or any) of water now? If not, why not? It had oceans once right? If so, where is it?
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2014
What do you mean "Earth may have gained it's oceans"? Why wouldn't Mars have also "gained oceans"?
But recent evidence says it did.
None of this is relevant. Who cares where it is, or where it was. We know ice formed at some point in the solar system, that's all that matters.
Yes, but you said that it didn't form with the Earth and that all of the water was deliver by Theia when it collided with Gaia. You suggested the water from that collision was trapped under the dome of the supercontinent. Sorry that you are getting frustrated, but I'm just trying to understand why you think it happened this way, and the only way for me to find that out is to probe your knowledge.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2014
Confirm the claim? There are a number of scenarios whereby the Earth may have gained it's oceans
Well I dont know about you muffy but I usually like to look this sort of thing up. You know instead of guessing.

"12 July 2012 The evidence for this ice is preserved in objects like comets and water-bearing carbonaceous chondrites, probably not in the materials that aggregated to initially form Earth. The team's findings contradict prevailing theories about the relationship between these two types of bodies and suggest that meteorites, and their parent asteroids, are the most-likely sources of the Earth's water... The team suggests that carbonaceous chondrites formed instead in the asteroid belt that exists between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. What's more, they propose that most of the volatile elements on Earth arrived from a variety of chondrites, not from comets."
Maggnus
4 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2014
Well I dont know about you muffy but I usually like to look this sort of thing up. You know instead of guessing.
What a good boy! Look Ghost has brought another scenario into the picture Scroof.

You'll have to pardon Ghost Scroof, he is interjecting into this thread because he thinks that his childish provocations will mean something to me. He very immature but thinks that by posturing he can gain some credibility with his farm animals.
Scroofinator
2 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2014
I don't know how there's another scenario, the carbonaceous chondrites was one explanation I found in my search, there just another form of asteroid. Perhaps Theia was an extremely large and aqueous carbonaceous chondrite? Either way, from all our current knowledge of planets(including exoplanets), the amount of water Earth has is extremely unique. My line of thinking is this: to get that water it requires an extremely unique circumstance, and a huge impact that forms a unique moon fits that profile.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2014
I don't know how there's another scenario, the carbonaceous chondrites was one explanation I found in my search, there just another form of asteroid.
I was being facetious
Perhaps Theia was an extremely large and aqueous carbonaceous chondrite?
Mars sized? Raises a whole different set of questions.
Either way, from all our current knowledge of planets(including exoplanets), the amount of water Earth has is extremely unique. My line of thinking is this: to get that water it requires an extremely unique circumstance, and a huge impact that forms a unique moon fits that profile.
How? I asked you about Venus; how do you know it didn't have the same amount of water as Earth when it formed?

You know, if you've already decided and aren't interested in talking about what the science actually says, just say so.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2014
Mars sized? Raises a whole different set of questions.

Why does it have to be Mars sized? All that we know is that an impact of a certain force created the moon. Since F=MA, we can theorize it was either a big object moving slow, or a smaller object moving fast. Again, the idea that Theia must have been Mars sized is a hypothesis, in which I have a slightly different version.

I asked you about Venus; how do you know it didn't have the same amount of water as Earth when it formed?

I don't know, do you? Also, Earth and Venus didn't have any water when they formed, they were just barren rocky planets.

BTW, I'm extremely interested in talking about science, hence my posting to a physics website. You just haven't told me anything about science that I didn't already know. Trust me, I'm not getting frustrated, although I don't think you can say the same thing.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2014
Why does it have to be Mars sized? All that we know is that an impact of a certain force created the moon. Since F=MA, we can theorize it was either a big object moving slow, or a smaller object moving fast. Again, the idea that Theia must have been Mars sized is a hypothesis, in which I have a slightly different version.
Wow, ok, you've shown about what you know. "Slightly different version"?

II don't know, do you? Also, Earth and Venus didn't have any water when they formed, they were just barren rocky planets.
http://news.natio...nus.html

BTW, I'm extremely interested in talking about science,
Seems like your more interested in pontificating
. hence my posting to a physics website. You just haven't told me anything about science that I didn't already know.
All I have done is ask questions, given you already think you know it all. Truth is, you know very little and what you do know is mixed up.

Scroofinator
1.4 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2014
"Slightly different version"?

Yup, pretty much the same thing, just with ice.

As for Venus, science says it could be either way(http://www.nature...3.html).

Have I not given a plausible response to your questions? Of which can't be proved/disproved, hence me claiming them to be theory(educated guess). I think instead of questioning what you think I know, your time would be better spent thinking for yourself and not just eating up whatever mainstream science feeds you. Accepted theories have been historically overturned.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2014
You'll have to pardon Ghost Scroof, he is interjecting into this thread because he thinks that his childish provocations
Well no I just popped in and saw you were making shit up again. So of course I had to say something.

Carry on.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2014
Yup, pretty much the same thing, just with ice.
No, it's very different than current theories and creates far more questions than it answers.

As for Venus, science says it could be either way(http://www.nature...3.html).
I don't know what you think that link shows, but there is nothing thee about Venus or any other planet, or anything else talked about in this thread.

Have I not given a plausible response to your questions? Of which can't be proved/disproved, hence me claiming them to be theory(educated guess).
No actually, you haven't answered most of them.
I think instead of questioning what you think I know, your time would be better spent thinking for yourself and not just eating up whatever mainstream science feeds you. Accepted theories have been historically overturned.
Not by doing what you're doing.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2014
(start here http://www.creati...3.html), then you will find much of it makes sense.

@scroof
Creationist pages are known pseudoscience
HOWEVER, should you wish to link to a known legitimate science site that supports the theory... say MIT, or even Berkley, etc, (ANY serious college will do) I would be happy to peruse the data presented
Saying science and religion don't belong together is like saying religion and politics don't belong together

actually, there isnt much difference between them
they are similar in that both are designed for controlling people
and I make a distinction between religion and faith
faith is the belief in something w/o proof
religion is the dogma that structures the belief and forces people to segregate and judge etc
But there is no empirical data to prove that's how it was millions of years ago

The THEORY is based upon the fundamentals of physics
But Maggnus seems to be explaining just fine for now

more later
StillWind
1 / 5 (13) Mar 04, 2014
How entertaining...pseudoscientists arguing with a Creationist. The Earth didn't require "icy bodies" to accrue water. Altho no one can yet say for sure, our water likely came to us from the Sun.
Also the ridiculous idea that the Earth's crust is dragged down into the mantle ignores simple physics. Of course, so does plate tectonics. The last time I looked, something of lower density cannot "sink" into something of higher density.
Pangea is a theory based on flawed data. It just so happens to be the current ruling paradigm. and has no more certainty than astrology or Anthropogenic Global Warming, which is to say none. If Pangea, or any supercontinent actually existed, it would be largely underwater.
All you kids need to get an education before you start calling each other names. It makes you look all the more foolish.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2014
How entertaining...pseudoscientists arguing with a Creationist.
Holy Christ , look at this idiot! And we're pseudoscientists you say? When did they let you out, and who let you near that computer before your meds took affect? Talk about trolling!
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2014
pseudoscientists arguing with a Creationist.

@still
irrelevant conjecture based upon?
blah...our water likely came to us...blah

unsupported conjecture
links/proof?
Also the ridiculous idea that the Earth's crust is dragged down into the mantle ignores simple physics. Of course, so does plate tectonics. The last time I looked, something of lower density cannot "sink" into something of higher density

conjecture argument from ignorance
this is like saying I cant hold you underwater in the Dead Sea if you are holding your breath
its not "sinking" it is being FORCED by the weight of the other plate=subduction
It makes you look all the more foolish

and posting unsupported conjecture on a science site is nothing more than trolling
yep
1 / 5 (12) Mar 05, 2014
Its funny you do not think religion has a place in science yet you guys believe in Big Bang Theory which is creationism.
Plate tectonics is also a seriously flawed theory.
http://users.indi...dex.html
This is another area in science where assumptions trump observations.
Your science faith is based on priori with dogma so strong that any questions are heretical. Only the high priests of MIT or Berkley have truth as they are the chosen.
Scroofinator
1.5 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2014
@Capn
faith is the belief in something w/o proof
religion is the dogma that structures the belief and forces people to segregate and judge

I agree. Just because I support this theory, don't assume I'm some religious fundamentalist, I'm not. I just think that it is a plausible explanation.

For me, it's not that hard to believe that a molten earth being cooled rapidly(by a large influx of water/ice) would coalesce into an approximately uniform sphere(oceanic crust). On top of that would be the water and the continental crust. Due to the constant heat/pressure from the inner earth, that uniform crust would eventually crack(developing faults). Like I said, it seems like a plausible series of events.

As for actual links, we don't have them, because mainstream science claims it as "crackpot theory", thus no "legitimate" institutional studies have been done.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2014
I just think that it is a plausible explanation

@scroof
well, given that the current theory is based upon observation and fundamental science, I would have to disagree that Hydroplate theory is plausible, especially given the intentional manipulation of data to force compliance with a religious belief

compare it closely, point by point, and see whether you believe: in the science; or the hydroplate theory. And skip the MJ during the study, as it can affect your perceptions

also, check out my above link and these links. Read up on how creationist skew data to fit their religion:
http://www.tim-th...aqs.html
http://www.tim-th...ion.html

mainstream science considers it crackpot for a reason... like I said: go point by point
read about everything including: radiation half-life, physics, thermodynamics, etc

Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2014
As for actual links, we don't have them, because mainstream science claims it as "crackpot theory", thus no "legitimate" institutional studies have been done

@Scroof
if there is any science that supports it, it will be available somewhere on-line... and that should be a huge warning to you about the validity of the theory
I am not telling you what to believe in... but if I was given a choice between science supported by empirical data, and a "plausible theory" supported by non-scientific sites, which do you think I would believe is more probable?

Creationists use this as an arguing point as well: conspiracy against the science
there is NO conspiracy against SCIENCE... only against stupidity, maybe
if it is BAD science (like creationist ideas) then it holds no water (pun intended)

THAT is why you cant find it in studies from reputable journals/publications/research

that is why religion has no place in science
you cant fix reality to conform to fantasy/belief
Scroofinator
1.3 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2014
given that the current theory is based upon observation and fundamental science, I would have to disagree that Hydroplate theory is plausible

Like I've said before, I do think that plate tectonics accurately describes what we observe today. I just don't think it began that way. Forget about the Hydroplate theory for a moment, please tell me how this:
a molten earth being cooled rapidly(by a large influx of water/ice) would coalesce into an approximately uniform sphere(oceanic crust). On top of that would be the water and the continental crust. Due to the constant heat/pressure from the inner earth, that uniform crust would eventually crack(developing faults)

isn't plausible?
Read up on how creationist skew data to fit their religion

You don't think scientists skew data to fit their theories? A bit of hypocritical thinking there.
Scroofinator
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2014
And skip the MJ during the study, as it can affect your perceptions


Well I'll keep up with my normal regiment, thank you. I like to do this thing where I create my own perceptions, and not just accept the perceptions that school/religion/media/government/etc... force onto us. Not really a big fan believing everything I'm told. Didn't ever realize the concept of thinking "outside the box" was so scary to mainstream scientific followers. I thought that was something only religious fundamentalists did...
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2014
Not really a big fan believing everything I'm told. Didn't ever realize the concept of thinking "outside the box" was so scary to mainstream scientific followers. I thought that was something only religious fundamentalists did

@Scroof
1- I am not trying to force anything and I never believe ANYTHING I am told until I find out for myself
2- I never mind people who think "outside the box"
3- it is NOT scary to me. Personally, I dont care one bit
4- dont give a sh*t about religious fundamentalists, as long as they dont screw with reality and try to introduce pseudoscience into real science affecting everything and getting people to become ignorant of reality because of a fantasy a couple of people believe in
5 – it was just a comment
your perceptions are affected by it, and not always for the better
you want it... I wont argue, as I really dont care

I was trying to tell you that keeping a clear focused mind may help you understand
that was all
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2014
You don't think scientists skew data to fit their theories? A bit of hypocritical thinking there.

@Scroof
when they DO skew data, they get found out
why?
Because part of the process is publication/peer review/replication of experiments etc
that is why COLD FUSION died, or did you forget about that?
Not hypocritical thinking if the basic premise and basic science of a theory is altered in order to comply with a fantastical magical philosophy with no empirical data supporting it

as for explaining anything: UNTIL you learn the basics and read up the links I gave, and learn WHY the theory of Plate Tectonics is valid or WHY it is supported by empirical data, then no manner of explanation I give will be enough, as you will always have another question
another "what about this"

reading up will give you benefit in that:
you can learn
you can argue points effectively
you will understand the WHY of the statements made about a subject
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2014
Like I've said before, I do think that plate tectonics accurately describes what we observe today. I just don't think it began that way.
That is because you have some wildly incorrect assumptions about how the sun and her planets formed. One of your first statement talked about how you felt that the 4000 year theory was bunk, it was hundreds of thousands. That's completely wrong - its about 4 1/2 Billion!
Forget about the Hydroplate theory for a moment,
Already done lol :)
please tell me how this:
isn't plausible?
Because it clearly, absolutely does not jibe with experimental evidence or observations. It is as wrong as saying it happened in 4000 yrs.
You don't think scientists skew data to fit their theories? A bit of hypocritical thinking there.
Some do. It costs them their jobs and reputations, and they end up bitter and lost in history - like Johan Prins! Ever heard of him?
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2014
Well I'll keep up with my normal regiment, thank you. I like to do this thing where I create my own perceptions, and not just accept the perceptions that school/religion/media/government/etc... force onto us. Not really a big fan believing everything I'm told.
And I hope you never do. But don;t confuse your lack of knowledge with scientist's lack of imagination & wonder. Learn what is known first, THEN try to argue it!
Didn't ever realize the concept of thinking "outside the box" was so scary to mainstream scientific followers. I thought that was something only religious fundamentalists did...
That's just funny, and very much not true.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2014
That's completely wrong - its about 4 1/2 Billion!

The age of the Earth? Funny, I thought at this time the Earth was was just a big ball of molten rock and no water. What I was talking about was a possible time frame for the split of pangea. Hundreds of thousands or millions, who really cares, it's the idea that matters. Don't get so caught up in the irrelevant details.
does not jibe with experimental evidence or observations

What experimental evidence from millions of years ago when the crust was forming do we have? Now we have a time machine? I fail to see how fossil records or layered sediments prove, beyond a doubt, that tectonics is how the earth ALWAYS functioned.
Learn what is known first, THEN try to argue it!

See, I like to challenge what is known based on what questions I have from learning it, and see if the people who claim to "know" it can repute it in a logical and unbiased way.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2014
UNTIL you learn the basics and read up the links I gave, and learn WHY the theory of Plate Tectonics is valid

That's the thing, the basics are very simple. Don't need to have a PHD in geology to understand it. I think what's really happening is you (and the others here) don't have the answers to my theoretical questions, so instead of admitting that you just say "there's no empirical data" or "fundamental science says otherwise" or "you have to learn all the points so you can figure it out yourself". I don't need to understand the whole theory, I understand enough, and the questions I raise are valid. If you actually have SPECIFIC data to prove me wrong, good, show me and I'll accept it. That is what you guys keep asking for, right? So far I've just been told that I just simply don't understand, a wildly inaccurate assumption.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2014
And Capn, as for the whole MJ and perception thing, I completely agree with you, it does change one's perception. However, whether one's perception is clear or not is also a perception.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2014
That's the thing, the basics are very simple. Don't need to have a PHD in geology to understand it. I think what's really happening is you ..snip.. don't have the answers to my theoretical questions, so instead of admitting that you just say "there's no empirical data" or "fundamental science says otherwise" or "you have to learn all the points so you can figure it out yourself". I don't need to understand the whole theory, I understand enough, and the questions I raise are valid. If you actually have SPECIFIC data to prove me wrong, good, show me and I'll accept it. That is what you guys keep asking for, right? So far I've just been told that I just simply don't understand, a wildly inaccurate assumption.
This is far and away the dumbest thing you have said in this thread! You don't have anywhere NEAR a good enough understanding, and shouting out how smart you are just makes you look the opposite. If that's your attitude, then you are already lost.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2014
...Don't get so caught up in the irrelevant details

@scroof
Science cares... SCIENCE IS the details
or were you referring to your statements? In THAT regard: The DETAILS are what allow for clear, concise communication
after reading further:
I can see now by your comments that you are here to make a name for yourself debating on Phys.org... well, you would be BETTER OFF debating with a GEOLOGIST as THEY would be able to accurately answer your questions and do all of the work that you dont want to do to find the answers that you dont want to believe anyway

further interaction would be wasting my time
thanks for pointing this out before we got more involved in the meat of the argument

if you mean what you said above: find a college professor in the field and ask them
I have questions too, but until I am taking the courses to answer those questions. I suggest the same. spend YOUR money on earning the education instead of seeking short partial answers and then arguing here
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2014
And Capn, as for the whole MJ and perception thing, I completely agree with you, it does change one's perception. However, whether one's perception is clear or not is also a perception.

@scroof
this is your BELIEF
as a retired Firefighter, I have spent MUCH TIME in the past scraping young people off the road for the SAME belief

this is a MEASURABLE EFFECT just like it is with alcohol
it has a MEASURABLE effect that can be shown to you
quick test: all you need is a video camera and the TIME to do it
FILM YOURSELF and all your interactions in public on heavy/light/medium MJ use, then stone cold sober...
you WILL see a difference
OR go to MOST large law enforcement / large professional fire departments and their training films have information too
maybe they will let you watch them

unless you refuse to see it... there are those who refuse to see it.. and i have scraped THEM off of roads too...

your choice
Scroofinator
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2014
@mags
Not once did I claim "how smart I am". I said I know enough to understand the fundamental concepts of tectonics. Why do you continue to assume I don't understand it? I challenge you to find anything I've commented in this article that proves my "lack of understanding". All I've done is question things, not claim to know it all, which you have done.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2014
Stumpy, do you go to the Universe Today site at all?
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2014
@Capn
I believe you misinterpreted what I meant. I wasn't talking about driving or operating anything. I was simply talking about what one's mental perception of what things are. Not some physical activity. I firmly accept it impairs motor functions, that wasn't the point.

Science cares... SCIENCE IS the details

Again, you misinterpreted the meaning of the statement. I said to not care about the irrelevant details of when the split of pangea happened, whether it was thousands or millions or billions of years doesn't really matter in the scope of the argument.

I can see now by your comments that you are here to make a name for yourself debating on Phys.org

This is by far, the dumbest thing that you have said so far. You really think the I want to make an (anonymous)name for myself? A lot of good that would do me. I simply like to know more, and ask questions. Is a physics website not the proper forum for this?
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2014
@scroof
had to AT LEAST link data supporting my comment about measurable effects of MJ:

http://alcoholism...aq17.htm

THC affects the nerve cells in the part of the brain where memories are formed. This makes it hard for the user to recall recent events (such as what happened a few minutes ago).
It is hard to learn while high - a working short-term memory is required for learning and performing tasks that call for more than one or two steps.
[sic]

and I wasn't talking about "just driving or operating"
it affects MORE than just that... how about memory or learning functions? (see link above)

as for the rest... you want someone to do the work for you to get answers. go get them yourself and THEN come argue your point.
I thought the same as you when I came here... blogs/question-answer forums are the best for what you are seeking

http://openstudy.com/

as for MJ
believe what you wish
that is your prerogative
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2014
Not once did I claim "how smart I am". I said I know enough to understand the fundamental concepts of tectonics.
You quibble. How many supercontinents have there been?
Why do you continue to assume I don't understand it? I challenge you to find anything I've commented in this article that proves my "lack of understanding".
Really? Let's see, how many do I list? Have the continents come to rest?
All I've done is question things, not claim to know it all, which you have done.
No, you've trotted out a bunch of disjointed opinions and then, when questioned, retreated into contempt and suggestions you already know enough about the foundations to question the theory upon which the foundations are the groundwork. I haven't made any claims, I have simply tried to get an understanding of your knowledge base. My answer: there is none.

End of conversation. Good luck!

And
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2014
Stumpy, do you go to the Universe Today site at all?

@Maggnus
sorry... just saw this post

not as much as I would like to.
lately, all I have had time for was the periodic touch-and-go on Phys.org and taking classes... in a few of them right now (well, 3 actually) and working on a study/report for one (which actually includes collecting some data from here lol)

Patron level btw
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2014
@ stumpy - Same handle?
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2014
look up James Truck Captain Stumpy
should get you there....
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2014
How many supercontinents have there been?

Unproven that there was even pangea, let alone multiple.
Have the continents come to rest?

Ya, earthquakes are just Mother Nature farting...
I haven't made any claims

Utter lie.
absolutely does not jibe with experimental evidence or observations

Is this not a claim? Albeit without evidence of your own to substantiate. All you have done is made baseless claims on the premise that "science says so".

It's become clear that you are the conformist type. I get it, it's easier that way, more people will like you, and you don't have to question your beliefs since others tell you what to know. "hey stumpy, wanna chat on universe today?"...
Maggnus
4 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2014
Nope, more hints?
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2014
Unproven that there was even pangea,


http://en.wikiped...agnetism
http://staff.bcc....nics.pdf
earthquakes are just Mother Nature farting

conjecture based upon ignorance
links/proof?
..., more people will like you...

or maybe he is just irritable because too many people come here wanting for everyone else to do the hard work FOR them?
This is the main issue... you have a philosophy (creationist postings are NOT theory or hypothesis as there is NO substantiated scientific fact to back them up)
you want US to prove you wrong
well, YOU made a claim, now PROVE YOU ARE RIGHT
the links above SHOULD give you enough information to track down what you want
but it is NOT our place to do your work for you
Zeph tried that in another thread, he has YET to produce ANY empirical data to support his conjectures.this is where YOU are at right now
linking PSEUDOSCIENCE undermines your claims
IF there is REAL SCIENCE then PROVE YOUR POINT
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2014
Scroof
see also...

http://www.opensc...mple.pdf

I will NOT do any more homework for you
THIS took less than 10 seconds on Google, and only 3 seconds on my other search engines so EITHER you are IGNORING PERTINENT evidence or you are here for a fight...
which is it?

read up... the LINKS SHOULD convince you that there is plenty of evidence (as i read them first and made sure what I wanted was in there)
the evidence is IN those links (and this one above)

bye for now

@Maggnus
hit me up "James Truck Captain Stumpy" on the site
Maggnus
4 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2014
go to the article Ukraine Crisis Not disrupting Russian Soyuz in universe today forum.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2014
earthquakes are just Mother Nature farting

conjecture based upon ignorance
links/proof?

I truly hope you did not take that seriously... I thought it was blatant enough sarcasm.

Do you think that by posting links to things that still don't answer the questions you will "change my mind"? I learned all of it high school, then again in college. Notice the last link still says "A continental drift THEORY".

I'm not trying to get anyone to "do my work for me". Googling things and reading isn't very hard. What is hard is to conceptualize something that is outside of the realm of what we are programmed to believe. Call me a science atheist if you will. Since your retired (thus older) it sounds like your the drone that the programming intended.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2014
go to the article

@Maggnus – not letting me in right now. Sorry. Dont know why
posting links to things that still don't answer the questions

1- it DID answer your questions
2- it DIRECTLY ASNWERED with EMPIRICAL DATA AND LINKS so that you could research it yourself
3- I dont care about your "mind" or beliefs
and apparently you dont understand hyperbole or satire
I learned all of it high school

apparently not
Notice the last link

it also had very small words and was easy enough for my 10y/o grandson to understand, so I thought it appropriate
Googling things and reading isn't very hard

I was shooting more for comprehension, which is why I used the links I did
it sounds like your the drone that the programming intended

1- it's "you're", not "your"
2- I believe nothing till I research it myself
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2014
What is hard is to conceptualize something that is outside of the realm of what we are programmed to believe

there is a communication error here, obviously

first answer this: why cant you comprehend the material that I linked?

Not being facetious, but legit. I carefully checked each link to make sure that it ASNWERED (most of) your questions above...
so either you are:
1- Illiterate
2- you cant comprehend what is written and how it applies to your questions
3- you did not read the links (or only read a page or two)
4- trolling

take your pick

I step outside the box to comprehend stuff as well. In fact, that is why I was such a successful investigator (that and my ability to comprehend a scene)
and I have thick skin (I lived in a fire house and in the military)
calling me names or saying that I am programmed to believe something is a pathetic attempt to get a rise you will never see
give me evidence or go away
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2014
Oooh, you got me good grandpa. Taught this young whipper snapper a thing or two...

I doubt there's anywhere in those links that talks about Theia being icy, or the fact that after the collision the first layer of crust(oceanic) coalesced into a completely solid shell, or that the continental crust would have merged into one continent since it would be floating in an ocean(similar to how piles of trash merge together in the ocean). Then comes the hydroplate theory. Go ahead and try to explain to me how any of this isn't plausible based on the tectonics theory you know so well.

Speaking of reading links, I guarantee you haven't looked through all of the hydroplate theory(if any). I'll give you this visual evidence(http://www.creati...4.html). Specifically look at the part "Major Mountain Ranges".

I think both theories are right, or at least parts of each. What's shocking is how "sure" you are when your probably as old as the tectonics theory.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2014
Taught this young whipper snapper a thing or two

doubtful, given your posts
I doubt there's anywhere in those links...

didnt read them then... ok, we got THAT much settled
probably a comprehension issue too, given that the links provided would have given you enough of the basic information to establish WHY hydroplate religion is NOT a valid hypothesis
(http://www.creati...4.html). Specifically look at...

I dont bother with PSEUDOSCIENCE SITES
also... if your precious philosophy had ANY scientific integrity, there would be publications supported by legitimate science in modern journals
but models based upon the manipulation of data for reasons of religion usually DONT make it into peer reviewed scientific publications FOR A REASON
I think both theories are right,

conjecture without evidence
... how "sure" you are

given that the theory is based upon scientific data, observation and reality, I would rate it far more plausible than hydroplate
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2014
I think both theories are right, or at least parts of each. What's shocking is how "sure" you are when your probably as old as the tectonics theory

judging by the above diatribe, I can make some valid assumptions about you
1- you are literate enough to at least read, as you are replying here... either that or you have help
2- you did not read all of the links, just enough to realise that they were basic information and then you clicked off of them
3- even though you have at least a high school (or equivalent) education, you did not comprehend WHY I chose the links, and likely you would not comprehend what was there

you are not seeking to know more, as you stated, because you have a firmly locked idea of what you think things should be and you havent bothered to learn WHY creationist ideas are wrong

THEREFORE we can assume that you are here to TROLL
now I understand
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2014
THEREFORE we can assume that you are here to TROLL
Just had to comment Stumpy - arguing with a snide pothead has to be on par with, or even slightly worse than, arguing with a bonafide mentally disturbed anti-socialist quote miner.

Just saying..... :D
Scroofinator
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 06, 2014
It's laughable that you can't even bring yourself to question your own belief. If you would have looked at the part that I was talking about, it's a picture of a mountain range that is "folded". How does rock fold without breaking?

Again you resorted to the same responses, without adding anything new. I'm done trying to convince a simpleton to look at something from another perspective.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2014
arguing with a snide pothead has to be on par with, or even slightly worse than, arguing with a bonafide mentally disturbed anti-socialist quote miner.Just saying..... :D

@Maggnus
you are correct, but I had to establish that for myself
he DID say he was here to learn (like me)
now that I know he is a TROLL I can ignore his posts
unless (like Zeph) he occasionally comes up with some legitimate science
(also - look up Truck Captain Stumpy again re; Cosmoquest forum from Universe Today & e-mail or message me)
I'm done trying to convince a simpleton to look at something from another perspective.

last parting shot @scroof
science is based upon Empirical data, not perspective and belief
thats why there is no Unicorn Farting Skittles Rainbow Theory
thats also why faith and religion have NO PLACE in science
you proved NOTHING because you provided NO EMPIRICAL DATA
want to learn about rocks folding?
READ MY LINKS

come back when you can post EMPIRICAL DATA
Scroofinator
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2014
Lol, typical old zombies. Still having nightmares from Reefer Madness I see. Better keep your night light on.

I see not only do refuse to look at new perspectives, but when confronted with it you ignore it as if you have selective dementia. I'll try again...

There are numerous mountain ranges that are "folded", like a rug getting pushed against a wall. How does hard rock fold without breaking?

Please attempt to answer in a civilized fashion, with no "we need empirical data/your a pothead/your a troll". Use your own eyes and brain to determine for yourself how this is possible. Subduction creating "fold mountains" is about the worst explanation I can think of. Go grab a sheet of shale and see how far you can bend it before it breaks...

EDIT: I notice you took out the "bye bye pothead" line. All that does is make you less respectable. Can't even stand up to your own insults...
Caliban
5 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2014
There are numerous mountain ranges that are "folded", like a rug getting pushed against a wall. How does hard rock fold without breaking?


This rhetorical question of yours --in and of itself-- clearly indicates your lack of any real understanding of of the geophysical and geochemical processes at work --much less their visible effects.

Also, some other recent posts here on PHYSorg indicate that your antiscience "viewpoint" runs much deeper than a mere willful disunderstanding of plate tectonics.

The good Captain is, therefore, entirely correct with the TROLL diagnosis.

Let the Derision and Downranking begin.
Scroofinator
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2014
Damn, I finally thought I was done with this one, now I got another schoolboy with blinders to deal with.

A rhetorical question is one that has no (direct) answer. My question:
How does hard rock fold without breaking?

has a very direct answer... it can't. Proven by the challenge of:
Go grab a sheet of shale and see how far you can bend it before it breaks...

You can go test it yourself if you want. You sheeple always want evidence right? Well show me the scientific tests that prove this is possible, and I'll drop the argument.
Let the Derision and Downranking begin.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Don't downrank me, my ego power shrinks with every 1 star vote....
Why is it that you fools think that something like this matters? The fact you've mimicked your predecessors shows that's all you care for. Since you have creepily stalked me you must obviously realize I don't give a fuck. My mind is free, while yours is bound by your fellow mainstream constituents. Oh the pity...
Caliban
5 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2014
Damn, I finally thought I was done with this one, now I got another schoolboy with blinders to deal with.

A rhetorical question is one that has no (direct) answer. My question:
How does hard rock fold without breaking?
has a very direct answer... it can't. Proven by the challenge of:
Go grab a sheet of shale and see how far you can bend it before it breaks...
You can go test it yourself if you want. You sheeple always want evidence right? Well show me the scientific tests that prove this is possible, and I'll drop the argument.
Let the Derision and Downranking begin.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Don't downrank me, my ego power shrinks with every 1 star vote....


Willful disunderstanding.

Troll.

Scroofinator
1 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2014
Way to repeat yourself tool. Try to use real big boy words if you want to sound intelligent. This will be difficult since you display the true sign of an imbecile: the inability to form an original thought.
Caliban
5 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2014
Way to repeat yourself tool. Try to use real big boy words if you want to sound intelligent. This will be difficult since you display the true sign of an imbecile: the inability to form an original thought.


And in what way does your willful disunderstanding of the facts qualify yours as "original thought", troll?

Like I said earlier, try reading the book. It is written for the interested layman.

The key term being "interested layman", meaning someone who would like to understand the principles and processes involved.

Not someone hellbent on proselitysing antiscience fiction.

Your inability to distinguish fact-based, reasoned, opposition to well-established scientific understanding of real-world processes from wishful thinking antiscience doesn't qualify.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2014
You monkeys are all the same. Ignore the valid challenges I propose, then proceed to say I don't know enough, or resort to calling me a troll. Like I said, there is no "proof" that fold mountains weren't created rapidly. Just because the plates move slowly now, that does not mean it's how it has always been. What an absurd thing to think: that just because we observe something today it's exactly how it was millions of years ago.

Most of the "scientific proof" you claim is open to interpretation, and far from scientific FACT. If you would actually read Walt Brown's(who, btw, has a PHD from MIT) theory he uses the exact same evidence you claim to prove tectonics, just puts a different perspective on it. Sad that science makes it heresy to stray from it's established dogmas, which have historically been overturned anyways.

Tell me, have you ever heard the theory before that Theia was icy, and that's where most of earths water came from? I haven't, thus original, at least for me.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2014
re: Scroof
Ignore the valid challenges I propose, then proceed to say I don't know enough, or resort to calling me a troll

maybe because your questions are specifically addressed already?
Like in those links I left you?
Just because you are too lazy to read them, doesnt mean the info is not there
Just because the plates move slowly now, that does not mean it's how it has always been

conjecture based on pseudoscience
proof/links?
What an absurd thing to think

yeah... how crazy it is to assume the laws of physics apply to everywhere all the time
totally NUTS! (hyperbole as well as satire)
"scientific proof" you claim is open to interpretation

only to the illiterate or uneducated
Sad that science makes it heresy to stray from it's established dogmas

conjecture without evidence
provide empirical data supporting your rant and you will be listened to
this is the KEY to science
NOT JUST SPECULATION, but EMPIRICAL DATA
this is where you fail
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2014
TROLL
In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally[3][4] or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[5] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[6]
[sic]

https://en.wikipe...ernet%29

demonstration as follows
You monkeys are all the same. Ignore the valid challenges I propose, then proceed to say I don't know enough, or resort to calling me a troll
&
Most of the "scientific proof" you claim is open to interpretation, and far from scientific FACT

when you come to a science site and cannot produce empirical data/maths supporting your argument, you tend to be labelled a TROLL
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2014
Hilarious stump, back again, and this time your trying to provide "evidence" that I'm a troll? Can't even bring yourself to debate my questions in a civilized manner. You know, when you point a finger at someone, there's 3 pointing back at you.
cannot produce empirical data/maths supporting your argument

I tried, I posted the links with the supporting arguments, but you refuse to acknowledge it because your scientific overlords say not to. "Thou shall not acknowledge theories from other than our kind." How is the scientific method supposed to work if your masters have a monopoly on it?
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2014
I posted the links with the supporting arguments

no, you posted a link to a creation/pseudoscience site
like I said, if there WAS valid empirical data to support your argument, it would be published in a reputable journal with evidence/empirical data/experiments supporting it
"Thou shall not acknowledge theories from other than our kind."

actually, it is "if you cannot provide empirical evidence then it is no better than conjecture, and therefore any other claim is equally as valid"
which means your comments are every bit as valid as "Unicorn farts smell like fairy shoes" given that neither have empirical data supporting them
How is the scientific method supposed to work if your masters have a monopoly on it?

I think you are confused about something...
see: https://en.wikipe...c_method

no one has a monopoly on the scientific method
you are probably angry because peer reviewed journals will not post unsupported conjecture
Caliban
5 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2014
You monkeys are all the same. Ignore the valid challenges I propose, then proceed to say I don't know enough, or resort to calling me a troll. Like I said, there is no "proof" that fold mountains weren't created rapidly. [...]

Most of the "scientific proof" you claim is open to interpretation, and far from scientific FACT. If you would actually read Walt Brown's[...], which have historically been overturned anyways.

Tell me, have you ever heard the theory before that Theia was icy, and that's where most of earths water came from? I haven't, thus original, at least for me.


No, sir -and absolutely not. It is only too clear that you wish to op[en the door the door to Catastrophism, and then use that as a slippery slope chute to Creationism.

Catastrophism has been thoroughly debunked and discredited as a significant force in geological processes, beyond the occasional impactor. All other events are driven by terrestrial geologic forces.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2014
Stump, you are by far the most annoying person I've ever experienced on a message board. Congrats. I'm done trying to explain anything to you, as all you want to do is force feed mainstream science to everyone. Don't fool yourself, you need affirmation from your community to consider something, not data. What a sorry way to live, can't even make up your own mind. I consider all explanations and all data, regardless of the origin, to formulate my beliefs, as a true man of science should.

@Caliban
You fear creationism so much that you would shun any possible theory that could be manipulated to promote it? Well, I don't want to burst your bubble, but the universe is a product of creation: the big bang. I'm not here trying to push any religious dogma on anyone, I don't follow any of them anyways.
Catastrophism has been thoroughly debunked

Agreed, but only for present and future. Nobody knows for fact what happened in the past, regardless of what "evidence and proof" there may be.
Caliban
5 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2014
Agreed, but only for present and future. Nobody knows for fact what happened in the past, regardless of what "evidence and proof" there may be.


With evidence lacking --as in evidence of catastrophism-- then only speculation is possible.

This in no way supports alternative "theories", which must also rely upon supporting evidence in order to have any validity beyond what they are, aka mere speculation.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2014
you are by far the most annoying person I've ever experienced on a message board. Congrats.

this is not a message board, it is the comments section of a SCIENCE site
I'm done trying to explain anything to you, as all you want to do is force feed mainstream science to everyone

I came to this site seeking SCIENCE and empirical data
you are seeking to open a forum for discussion...There is a difference
I would recommend that you seek out a forum that is open to said discussion
AS this is a SCIENCE SITE
it is not a BAD thing to require empirical data during discussion
What a sorry way to live, can't even make up your own mind.

unproven conjectures
I can change my mind given empirical data
I consider all explanations ... as a true man of science should

plenty of con-men/BS artists will make you believe what they want
the only way to get rid of them/fight them is to demand empirical evidence
have something to prove: Use empirical data etc etc etc
Scroofinator
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2014
Like I've said before, the evidence for both theories is the same. Hydroplate theory isn't an explanation that currently describes anything. That's what tectonics is for. Hydroplate theory tries to explain some of the mysteries of the past which are in our current geological model. Obviously tectonics can't explain it all.

Whenever we look into the past to try to figure it out, it's always speculation. So yes, with the current evidence presented before us, I speculate that millions of years ago the continents were one (which both theories agree), and after some amount of time the pressure below the crust finally broke through in a catastrophic fashion forcing the continents to separate rapidly.

You can only claim there is no evidence for it if you refuse to look.
Scroofinator
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2014
Stump, I told you I'm done with you. I could put in more effort but I already know your response:

blah blah
unproven conjectures

blah blah
empirical data

blah blah
TROLL

blah blah

your a broken record dude, it's gone from funny to sad.
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2014
You monkeys are all the same.


Skippy, I got two questions for you. I hope you are not including me in that comment. Are you?

Oh yeah the other question. What the hell is a scroofinator? That's got to be the oddest name I've seen here in a long time. What it mean? But I think it will go right nicely with that silly looking pointy cap I'm close to awarding you.

Skippy, you got some really smart peoples taking the time to try to teach you something. If you was half less dumb than Ol" Ira thinks you are, you spend more time listening to them.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy. I'll be keeping the eye on you.
Caliban
5 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2014
Like I've said before, the evidence for both theories is the same. Hydroplate theory isn't an explanation that currently describes anything. That's what tectonics is for. Hydroplate theory tries to explain some of the mysteries of the past which are in our current geological model. Obviously tectonics can't explain it all.


Yup.

Your theory isn't supported by the facts on the ground or the geochemical/geophysical processes that have been experimentally and observationally verified to have been in operation and continue to be so.

Your saying that if I slip on the ice, that I slipped on the ice because a strong wind was blowing. the effect is the same, but the cause is different, and only one is supported by
empirical evidence.
Scroofinator
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2014
Hey Unc, your gonna have to tell me if you fall into the "monkey" category. Do you blindly adhere to all that is mainstream science, without consideration for anything outside the realm of the "established" doctrine? If so then I guess I'd have to say yes. Don't get me wrong, I agree with most of it. I just reserve the right to be skeptical of how accurate it all truly is, since history tells us things aren't always as they appear. Hell, Einstein didn't even believe in QM.

As for the handle, a scroof is a leach on society who never gives anything back. So the *inator is self explanatory. Those people really grind my gears. A bit tacky, I know.

There may be some smart people here, but they're not trying to teach, they're trying to convert. I took the classes, read the books, seen the evidence, and it doesn't fully add up for me. If you've read all the comments you know some of the reasons why.

As for that wizard cap, thanks! I'm sure Stump has got the dunce cap on lock down.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2014
they're not trying to teach, they're trying to convert.

conjecture -argument from ignorance
you asked a question, we answered
you also tried to post proof of your philosophy except that you posted a link to a pseudoscience site:
this is the equivalent of being a defendant in court and urinating on the judge
I took the classes, read the books, seen the evidence, and it doesn't fully add up for me

because you dont understand what EMPIRICAL data is
or how the scientific method works
or how QM and the empirical data today applies to your quest for proof/answers

just because you believe in something, doesnt mean it is true
your belief is a FAITH -NOT SCIENCE, and therefore, as it cannot be proven, it is every bit as relevant to science as Fairy turds

IOW – creation philosophies have no basis in reality OR in SCIENCE
thats why the even the courts say "creation-science" is a RELIGION, NOT SCIENCE

https://en.wikipe...Arkansas
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2014
@Uncle Ira
welcome back!
J'espère que vous n'êtes pas la gueule de bois

J'espère que vous avez passé un bon moment à Mardi Gras
J'ai raté la partie cette année en raison de travailler autour de ma propriété
Peut-être que l'année prochaine je vais à la Nouvelle-Orléans pour la célébration
Je suis heureux de voir que vous êtes de retour
Même si je suis en utilisant Google translate, j'ai raté le "Ragin Cajun" Ira et chapeaux pointus!
Réagissez à vous bientôt et laissez le bon temps rouler
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2014
verified to have been in operation and continue to be so

What are you not getting here? I agree with the above statement, the present and future is not the issue. The issue is the past.

I've already presented the "fold mountain" example, to no response at all. I'll give you another. How does tectonics explain fossilized forests near the north pole (also found in Antarctica I believe), with root systems still intact, being flash frozen and thus preserved? These forests obviously could not grow in those latitudes, so how are they there? If millions of years had elapsed during the slow movement of the plates, we would expect to find nothing as it would have all decomposed in a fraction of that time.
because a strong wind was blowing

Or you slipped because you had poor traction, or because the pressure from your weight formed a thin layer of water, or because you have no balance... There could be many causes, yet because the wind had blown you perceive it to be the culprit.
Scroofinator
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2014
Wow stump, even after I call out your moves you still don't even try to change it up. That's a shallow bag of tricks your pulling from there.

blah blah
CONJECTURE -argument from ignorance

blah blah
understand what EMPIRICAL DATA

blah blah

You make a lot of assumptions stump, you know what they say when you assume.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2014
You make a lot of assumptions stump, you know what they say when you assume

IF Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) = a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation
AND
GIVEN your support of pseudoscience like creation/hydroplate AND
Given your coments like
Obviously tectonics can't explain it all.

&
I consider all explanations and all data, regardless of the origin

it is apparent that you DO NOT understand empirical data
therefore it is NOT assumption

THIS is the reason that you are having issues in the thread
you have been handed the answers you asked for, but you refused to read thru the links
so : are you lazy?
Illiterate?
Religious and here to defend your belief?
Or Trolling ?

the links in the beginning had all the answers for you
why didnt you read them then address the specific science in them on a point by point basis?
????
Caliban
5 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2014

What are you not getting here? I agree with the above statement, the present and future is not the issue. The issue is the past.

I've already presented the "fold mountain" example, to no response at all. I'll give you another. How does tectonics explain fossilized forests near the north pole (also found in Antarctica I believe), with root systems still intact, being flash frozen and thus preserved? These forests obviously could not grow in those latitudes, so how are they there? If millions of years had elapsed during the slow movement of the plates, we would expect to find nothing as it would have all decomposed in a fraction of that time.


Let's see your citations for these.

As far as folding is concerned, if you understand plate tectonics, then you should understand how and under what circumstances they form, and shouldn't need any explanation.

But feel free to provide a ctation for one of these mysterious phenomena, as well.

Apologies for upranking your earlier post
TransmissionDump
5 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2014
I'm an untutored dumb tradesman but I can't help but ask..

A rhetorical question is one that has no (direct) answer. My question:
How does hard rock fold without breaking?


Woudn't you just apply heat and it becomes pliable?


has a very direct answer... it can't. Proven by the challenge of:
Go grab a sheet of shale and see how far you can bend it before it breaks...


Does a sheet of shale exist as an unfractured solid sheet over lots of sq. miles or is it fractured and full of cracks? 'cause if its full of cracks folding a shale sheet would be no probs at all at a mountain scale.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.6 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2014
Wow, more creationist trolling helping people to reject magic thinking and accept science!

In that perspective it is a moot, but interesting, question "how does plate tectonics explain the initial cause of continental drift".

As we all know, or should know, global plate tectonics is driven by the subduction of parts of some plates. So it is gravitational sorting still going on after 4.5 billion years!

That sorting is driven by the gravitational potential of an as of yet insufficiently differentiated planet. A differentiated planet would mean every molecule had found its hydrostatically balanced place, no mean feat. And the process is not helped by radioactivity and heating still making molecules change mass over time.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2014
@TransmissionDump: You are entirely correct, of course rocks are eventually fractured during folding, as anyone can see. E.g. here: http://nowthatsni...qXeN5N8E

More generally, the mantle that the plates flows on is also viscous, it has to be, with a time constant of ~10^5 years. Acting like the tar currently dripping in one of the oldest experiments. (~ 10 drops/century.)

How olivine, the most common mineral, was viscous was however not known until lately: "Disclinations provide the missing mechanism for deforming olivine-rich rocks in the mantle ... This new approach clarifies grain-boundary-mediated plasticity in polycrystalline aggregates. By providing the missing mechanism for describing plastic flow in olivine, this work will permit multiscale modelling of the rheology of the upper mantle, from the atomic scale to the scale of the flow." http://www.nature...3043.htm
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (8) Mar 09, 2014
@Maggnus: "At some point after the Theia/Gaia collision, the late heavy bombardment period occurred. Maybe the water came then?"

Nit: The preferred terms for the impactors would be Tellus/Theia, making Earth/Moon. (Tellus for the proto-Earth planetoid is a current suggestion for acceptance in the geological community vs naming the early periods of Earth.)

Actually, the recent likely verification of the "cool early Earth", with crust, oceans and continents already @ 4.4 Ga bp and on, pushes the bulk of the water as having to come with the planetoids.

People have started to look into that. They have already been able confirm that it is possible to retain and reform atmosphere and oceans during such collisions from smallish planetoids on.

I just made a longish description on why we now know that the "cool early Earth" and its results are implied here: http://arstechnic...6397629#
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2014
"And the process is not helped by radioactivity and heating still making molecules change mass over time."

Oookay, that came out clumsy.

I meant that radioactivity may change the mass or even the nature of a molecule when it changes the isotope of the original radioactive atom (changing its number of nucleons; beta radiation doesn't do that), perhaps to another atom (changing its number or protons).

And that heat flows (of which radioactivity still provides ~ 40 %) still are large enough to make chemical modifications, make chemistry happen. The resulting new molecules (but same atoms) have to sort accordingly to that afterwards.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2014
"You are entirely correct, of course rocks are eventually fractured during folding, as anyone can see. E.g. here: http://nowthatsni...qXeN5N8E"

WTF? Html fail. Sigh, it was the 3d photo from the end that I was intending to point at. But some of the other rocks also shows fracturing.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2014
"You are entirely correct, of course rocks are eventually fractured during folding, as anyone can see. E.g. here: http://nowthatsni...qXeN5N8E"

WTF? Html fail. Sigh, it was the 3d photo from the end that I was intending to point at. But some of the other rocks also shows fracturing.

@Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
looks like the pics clicked on are embedded in flash or something like that... maybe why it failed to go directly to the 3rd to the last pic??
some IT people would know more about that...
GREAT PIC though... and great example too!
THANKS
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2014
@Caliban
Source for north pole forest: Jane E. Francis, "Arctic Eden,"
Link for Anarctica : http://www.bbc.co...12378934
While the link follows tectonics theory, it still shows these forests are there. It says Antarctica was "tropical", which is hard to believe given the latitude. They claim it's from "extreme greenhouse effect."

For the fold mountains, take a look at the first picture here:
http://www.teachi...dex.html
The processes of subduction are too slow (mountains "grow" at 1-3cm/year) to form such giant folds, since the soft material would have hardened well before it could have folded to such extremes. We've never witnessed the creation of these mountains, so anything trying to explain it is speculation.
Woudn't you just apply heat and it becomes pliable?

Heat is used to cure rock forming material (think clay being fired into bricks). This process makes rock harder and more brittle, not pliable
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2014
Heat is used to cure rock forming material (think clay being fired into bricks). This process makes rock harder and more brittle, not pliable


Scoofinator Skippy, I'm not a scientist really. People just make that mistake because I use the google thing a lot before I answer or ask the question me.

But don't that rock and stuffs get more like an almost squishy stuffs if it gets a lot of heat and pressure at the same time? I mean when a bunch on the top is pushing heavy on the bottom stuffs?

Oh yeah. Are you going to tell me what the Scoofinator is? I couldn't find that one on the google.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy you. And you watch yourself around that Captain Skippy, I see his picture on the profile page, he looks like a pretty tuff customer him. If he was to take on the grand gator barehanded I'd put my money on the Captain Skippy, eh?

Scroofinator
1 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2014
But don't that rock and stuffs get more like an almost squishy stuffs if it gets a lot of heat and pressure at the same time?

Yup, it's called magma. There isn't a whole lot of pressure on the top of mountains though, or heat for that matter.
Bonia
Mar 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2014
But don't that rock and stuffs get more like an almost squishy stuffs if it gets a lot of heat and pressure at the same time?

Yup, it's called magma. There isn't a whole lot of pressure on the top of mountains though, or heat for that matter.


Naa, Skippy, the magna stuffs I already found on the google. I was thinking about under the mountain but on top of the magnas. Ol' Ira maybe read what I read wrong. I thought that the crusty stuffs sometimes acts more like squishy stuffs because of the pressures and heat. The earthquacks are caused when the goo gives way and the folds try to unfold. Since I'm not really the scientist I'll just have to trust you smarts peoples that I read wrong what I read me, eh?
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2014
How does plate tectonics explain the initial cause of continental drift
The plate tectonics doesn't explain the continental drift simply because it's based on the same common assumption, i.e. these two models are siblings in causual hiearchy. The underlying idea is, that the Earth mantle circulates in large convective cells and the magma cools at the surface like the ice crust at the surface of circulating water. The circulation of magma occasionally breaks the Earth crust into continental plates and collides them somewhere else.


Hey Zephir Skippy, is that you? How you go Neg? I like your new name. I'm still Ira me.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Zephir Skippy. If it's you, eh?
Bonia
Mar 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2014
Nope, I'm not Skippy or Neg. The matter of fact discussion is not transparent for people who navigate itself by names of poster in it. If everyone of us would use just a matter of fact arguments, then the outcome of discussion wouldn't depend on the people who were involved in it - doesn't it true? Try to focus with your arguments to the content of posts, not on the names of people, or you will remain confused all the time - actually the more, the more the discussion will be Socratic and free of politics.


Hoowee, I'm sorry Not Zephir Skippy. Mistaken identity for me. I was just trying to be friendly to my ol podna which I not see in a time, eh? I didn't mean nothing by it.

Oh, yeah, I call everybody the Skippy, even me, it's don't mean nothing no. And the Neg is just a term of the coonass means only "ol friend" or podna, nothing bad. Pardon me if you was offended by the Ira Skippy saying the mistaken identity hallooo, I intend it no harm, not me.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2014
I was thinking about under the mountain but on top of the magnas

Well it is typically warmer in this area, but if it was really volatile we wouldn't tunnel through mountains as often as we do. Granted, deep mines often collapse due to increased heat and pressure, but that's far from earthquakes. According to tectonics earthquakes are mainly caused by the friction between plates, or stress in the middle of plates(such as new madrid fault), or volcanism. The folds trying to unfold is a new idea to me. Did you read that somewhere or just thinking out loud?
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2014
The folds trying to unfold is a new idea to me. Did you read that somewhere or just thinking out loud?


I think it was something I read wrong somewhere. On the science stuffs the Ira doesn't usually think out loud because I'm not the real scientist. If you mean was the Ira Skippy just guessing no not me.
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2014
@Uncle Ira
welcome back!
J'espère que vous n'êtes pas la gueule de bois

J'espère que vous avez passé un bon moment à Mardi Gras
J'ai raté la partie cette année en raison de travailler autour de ma propriété
Peut-être que l'année prochaine je vais à la Nouvelle-Orléans pour la célébration
Je suis heureux de voir que vous êtes de retour
Même si je suis en utilisant Google translate, j'ai raté le "Ragin Cajun" Ira et chapeaux pointus!
Réagissez à vous bientôt et laissez le bon temps rouler


Hey Captain Skippy, I missed this message.

I had the real big time in Town. Danse all night, yeah me! Wednesday I probably feel worse than you did no matter how hard you worked on the Tuesday, eh?

The french you have is the Paris french but I understand. Them Paris Skippys are big stupid, the cajun understand them just fine, but for some reason they can't understand the cajun no. Or maybe they just pretend to not. You get that from the google you? Podna that google is the smart thing,
Caliban
5 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2014
@Caliban
Source for north pole forest: Jane E. Francis, "Arctic Eden,"
Link for Anarctica : http://www.bbc.co...12378934
The processes of subduction are too slow (mountains "grow" at 1-3cm/year) to form such giant folds, since the soft material would have hardened well before it could have folded to such extremes.[...]
Woudn't you just apply heat and it becomes pliable?

Heat is used to cure rock forming material (think clay being fired into bricks). This process makes rock harder and more brittle, not pliable


@scroot,

Again, you demonstrate your near complete lack of comprehension of the processes and timescales involved in plate tectonics.

Therefore, your(one can only assume) willful disunderstanding will continue to result in derision and downranking, as nothing you have said can be taken at all seriously.

Educate yourself, and then perhaps you will be able to contribute in some meaningful way.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2014
But don't that rock and stuffs get more like an almost squishy stuffs if it gets a lot of heat and pressure at the same time?

@Uncle Ira
Read Torbjorn_Larsson_OM's descriptions above... about 14 messages up! He explains it very well... and even gives some pictures (although the links is to a page, check out the 3rd to the last pic, of the folded rock... you will see what Torbjorn means)
If you use the links I posted toward the beginning of the comments, you get essentially the same conclusions, it will just take longer... and TL's only got a few posts.LOL

and YES, Bonia is one of Zephir's new names here, as well as Rimino
The french you have is the Paris french but I understand

yeah... Google doesn't have a translate to Cajun button! LOL
Glad you had a grand ol' time!
Laissez les bons temps rouler
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2014
Caliban, your about as bad as stump.
you demonstrate your near complete lack of comprehension of the processes and timescales involved in plate tectonics.

Explain to me what I'm not understanding then, obviously my lower intelligence can't comprehend what your advanced intellect so easily understands. Don't just say the same shit over and over again, with no actual rebuttals to combat my claims. You sound like a little kid that just got told there's no santa, with no rhyme or reason to your whining, just not wanting to believe what you hear. You can cover you ears all you want, but don't sit here and tell me I don't understand things if you can't even remotely argue how I'm wrong.

Riddle me this: if a subduction fault starts creating a mountain(from sea level), and that mountain grows at an average of 1cm/year, how tall is the mountain after 1 million years? How about after a billion years? What sort of timescale are you looking for here?
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2014
you get essentially the same conclusions

There you go, telling people what to believe again. It's funny how hard you try to get these people to like you. Don't forget to cup the balls.

BTW, TL didn't post any peer reviewed links, or give any empirical data(might have but most links 404d). He gave you a link to his own comments on another comments section and "some cool rocks." Ooooohhh, pretty......
Caliban
5 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2014
Caliban, your about as bad as stump.
you demonstrate your near complete lack of comprehension of the processes and timescales involved in plate tectonics.

Explain to me what I'm not understanding then, obviously my lower intelligence can't comprehend what your advanced intellect so easily [...] mountain grows at an average of 1cm/year, how tall is the mountain after 1 million years? How about after a billion years? What sort of timescale are you looking for here?


Your are the genius --educate yourself. I'm not going to trouble myself doing it for you one post at a time. Others have already attempted here, but you continue to insist that you already have the answers, demonstrating over and over again your willful disunderstanding.

Go nator some goddam scroofs or something --don't waste my time with your insincere blandishmnets.

TransmissionDump
5 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2014

Woudn't you just apply heat and it becomes pliable?

Heat is used to cure rock forming material (think clay being fired into bricks). This process makes rock harder and more brittle, not pliable


Never seen a volcano blow bricks out the top.

I'm sure most things would melt at some point.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2014
don't waste my time with your insincere blandishmnets.

That's rich coming from a guy who only throws out insults. Nice catchphrase "willful disunderstanding", you pick that up on twitter?

Answer to the question that you avoided: 10,000 meters for a million years, and we don't have any mountains that tall...
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2014
Never seen a volcano blow bricks out the top.

I'm sure most things would melt at some point.[\q]

Nor will you, since it's the buildup of already molten rock(magma chamber) that blows out a volcano. Plus, major mountain ranges aren't made of igneous rock.

Twist things around all you like, but heat alone doesn't make rock pliable, it makes it brittle.
TransmissionDump
5 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2014

So if I chuck a lump of say basalt or granite in a crucible and apply heat it won't turn into lava but it'll harden and turn brittle?

I'm trying to understand where heat alone makes rock brittle. If this were the case wouldn't lava instantly turn hard and brittle when the pressure component is removed and only heat is acting upon it?
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2014
Well everything has a melting point, so up until then the rock becomes more brittle. With increased pressure the melting point gets lower.
If this were the case wouldn't lava instantly turn hard and brittle when the pressure component is removed and only heat is acting upon it?

I'm assuming you well know what happens to lava once it's in normal atmospheric conditions, and that you also know there's nothing that "cools instantly." The outer layers exposed to the air cool rapidly and is sometimes safe to walk on within 10-15 minutes. It's still pretty brittle as far as rock goes though.
Caliban
5 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2014
don't waste my time with your insincere blandishmnets.

That's rich coming from a guy who only throws out insults. Nice catchphrase "willful disunderstanding", you pick that up on twitter?

Answer to the question that you avoided: 10,000 meters for a million years, and we don't have any mountains that tall...


OK, genius-

This last assertion of yours is exactly the type of willful disunderstanding that you exhibit with each of your posts...if you actually possessed any of the understanding that claim to --and in such abundance-- then you would be aquainted with the notion of EROSION.

Now --go piss up a rope, moron.

Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2014
Nit: The preferred terms for the impactors would be Tellus/Theia, making Earth/Moon. (Tellus for the proto-Earth planetoid is a current suggestion for acceptance in the geological community vs naming the early periods of Earth.)
Ah I didn't know that, I thought it was accepted already as Gaia. Thanks for the info Torbjorn!
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2014
So hostile Caliban, did it feel good to get that off your chest?
notion of EROSION.

See, that was something I had forgotten about. That's what this whole discussion thing is supposed to be about, bringing up ideas that may have previously gone unnoticed. That said, many mountain ranges are still growing(albeit, curently slower than the previously stated 1cm/year):
http://www.amnh.o...the-rise
It's a complex feedback loop of uplift and erosion, and the process of mountain forming is still not that well understood:
"What we're interested in the St. Elias Erosion/tectonics Project, specifically," says Headley, "is looking at if the glacier is carving down really fast, what does that mean in terms of the uplift of the rock itself? Does it mean that the glacier will just carve down? Or does that mean because the glacier is carving down it's actually thinning the crust and making it slightly lighter."
TransmissionDump
5 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2014
Well everything has a melting point, so up until then the rock becomes more brittle. With increased pressure the melting point gets lower.


If pressure reduces the melting point of a rock. Would there not be a point where
when the conditions are right.... (I'm pulling figures out of my arse for examples sake)
lets say the melting point of basalt under atmospheric pressure is 1000 deg.

Under 1000 PSI of pressure the melting point reduces to 900 deg.

So if I had a lump of molten basalt under 1000 PSI @ 900 deg and suddenly dumped
all pressure out. My lump of basalt's melting point has now gone back to 1000 deg.

Therefore: My lump of basalt should pretty well crystallize instantly and turn very brittle indeed until
I can heat it back up to 1000 to melt it again.

Is this true?
Caliban
5 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2014
So hostile Caliban, did it feel good to get that off your chest?

notion of EROSION.

See, that was something I had forgotten about. That's what this whole discussion thing is supposed to be about, bringing up ideas that may have previously gone unnoticed. That said, many mountain ranges are still growing(albeit, curently slower than the previously stated 1cm/year):
http://www.amnh.o...the-rise
It's a complex feedback loop of uplift and erosion, and the process of mountain forming is still not that well understood:
"What we're interested in the St. Elias Erosion/tectonics Project, specifically," says Headley, "is looking at if the glacier is carving down really fast, what does that mean in terms of the up


Blah, blah, blah.

You can't forget what you don't already know. And yet you claim thorough knowledge of plate tectonics.

This makes you a troll --pure and simple.

Scroofinator
1 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2014
You can't forget what you don't already know. And yet you claim thorough knowledge of plate tectonics.

Sounding like a little stumpy junior now. All talk no substance, pulling assumptions out of your ass. You validly bring up a point, I accept and adjust my thinking, admit where I had erred, and then explain it to you. I even provided you a link from a reputable site that you guys so desperately need. Since you still couldn't "prove me wrong" you get all pissy and childish.

You continue to brush away all evidence and explanations I propose, even when you can't use your own accepted theories to disprove them, simply because it goes against established doctrine (reminiscent of the inquisition).

This makes you a drone -- pure and simple.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (3) Mar 10, 2014
Therefore: My lump of basalt should pretty well crystallize instantly and turn very brittle indeed until
I can heat it back up to 1000 to melt it again.

Is this true?


Ya, I think it would be pretty instantaneous since it would be under the regular melting point.

I'm having a hard time figuring out what your point is with this though?
TransmissionDump
5 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2014
I'm trying to understand the mechanism behind rock going from liquid to solid and vice versa.
Because if there's a stage where it's somewhat pliable then you can fold it and bend it without it shattering.

So... next question,
In a volcano I'm assuming magma is under pressure until it vents out of the top of the volcano.

Why don't we see the now depressurized lava crystallize nearly instantaneously and rain down as solidified basalt (my metaphorical bricks).

And also when heat is applied to an object what mechanism is employed on a molecular level where rock becomes brittle and say steel becomes pliable.

Scroofinator
1 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2014
Why don't we see the now depressurized lava crystallize nearly instantaneously and rain down as solidified basalt (my metaphorical bricks)

Because even with the pressure, the temperature is still greater than original the melting point. So when it's released the melting point increases, but it's still hot enough to be melted, and the residual heat keeps it from instantly hardening.
And also when heat is applied to an object what mechanism is employed on a molecular level where rock becomes brittle and say steel becomes pliable.

While I'm not positive, I'd guess it's the chemical bonds and binding energy of the atoms. Metals tend to have more binding energy than any other elements, so it softens instead of becoming brittle. At least for ancient sword making, they would add some glass and charcoal to the metal to make them harder. I think there's probably a similar process for modern steel and metals.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014
folded", like a rug getting pushed against a wall. How does hard rock fold without breaking?
This IS pretty ignorant. In addition to the info above, rock deformation is reproduced and studied in dedicated labs under similar conditions.
http://www.rockde....ethz.ch
Because even with the pressure, the temperature is still greater than original the melting point. So when it's released... While I'm not positive, I'd guess it's the chemical bonds and binding energy of blah
You really think science is done this way? With a bunch of guys like you sitting around saying 'Well maybe this or maybe that'?

Scientists examine the evidence, do experiments, analyze the results, write papers, in the midst of peers like the Rock Deformation Laboratory research group, a sub-group within the structural geology research unit in the department of Earth Sciences, ETH Zurich.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014
I'm trying to understand the mechanism behind rock going from liquid to solid and vice versa.
If you really wanted to know, why on earth would you ask HERE, in a site full of ad hoc guesstimators like Scroof and Magnus and captain courageous? This is the internet. It's easy to find what experts have to say.
Physics of magma
http://ffden-2.ph...agma.htm
http://magma.geol...port.pdf

-Dozens of refs in GOOGLE.
TransmissionDump
5 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2014
Thanks Ghost.

Scroof:
I found this lecture by
Professor Timothy L. Grove. Department of Earth, Atmospheric & Planetary Sciences
http://quake.mit....tes.html

In here the good Prof. says that
"The temperature needed to melt mantle rock increases with pressure and hence depth."
which is the opposite to the mechanism you've described where melting point decreases with pressure.

Would you say the Professor full of shit?
Scroofinator
1.4 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2014
Would you say the Professor full of shit?

On the topic of melting points, I'm gonna have to say yes. I figured since an increase of pressure makes things hotter that it would lower the melting point, but it actually increases it. Thanks for the info.
TransmissionDump
5 / 5 (9) Mar 11, 2014
I'm having a bit of trouble understanding that.

I read that as:
yep the prof is full of it when he says pressure increases melting point.
You figured that pressure makes things hotter and it would lower the melting point but
it increases it. Thanks..

To me, you've just shot the prof out of the sky then completely agreed with his statement.

Scroof, if you're getting something as simple as the effects of pressure acting upon an object does wrong, one has to question the validity of all the other stuff mate.

Scroofinator
3 / 5 (4) Mar 11, 2014
Oh, no, I didn't read what you said right. I thought you called me "Professor full of shit", to which I agreed. I made a wrong assumption of how pressure affects melting points (other then for water/ice), so for the most part I guess I was talking out of my ass.
Caliban
5 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014
I was talking out of my ass.


So far, in this comment thread of about 150, this is the only thing that you have said that shows any real understanding.

I encourage you to build on that understanding.

You might try starting along that road by reading the book I recommended earlier. It will help you to understand a great deal, and make it possible to approach this subject on a much more well-informed basis.

Good luck.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014
Caliban, that was the trolliest move I've seen here. How's it feel to outdo stump? You still haven't proven me wrong with anything, so if your gonna add something it better have a link or it's gonna be ignored.
Caliban
5 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2014
Caliban, that was the trolliest move I've seen here. How's it feel to outdo stump? You still haven't proven me wrong with anything, so if your gonna add something it better have a link or it's gonna be ignored.


Each and every one of your posts here has only served to harden your own Troll diagnosis.

If you want to understand, then, as I have urged several times now --read the book.

I understand, of course, that this will consume some of your time, but since you have questions, then SEEK THE ANSWERS to those questions, instead of continuing to bandy about your troll's willful disunderstanding, as this will only serve to prejudice your future status here as a commentor.

Maggnus
5 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2014
so for the most part I guess I was talking out of my ass.
Lol you do that a lot, nice that you can admit it!
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2014
nice that you can admit it!

How is it a shock that I admitted when I was wrong? Oh, because your never wrong so you never have to admit it, I forgot.

Your comment was the act of a pitiful troll, although I'm not shocked. I was wondering how many of you clowns would take the low road. I'm a bit surprised that stump hasn't done the same though.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014
How is it a shock t...you never have to admit it

@scroof
I see that you really ARE new here
first: no shame in admitting when you are wrong
second: Maggnus (as well as myself and others) have fully admitted being wrong in the past. He will not here because he IS NOT WRONG
you came here asking questions and when answered either:
COULDNT understand what was being told to you
OR
WOULDNT understand
take your pick...

one way says you were wrong and that is that
the other means you were TROLLING and we will just avoid helping in the future
and we will most likely point you out to others as a troll, too

should've just read the links left for you... they HAD THE ANSWERS
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2014
There you are stump, saying the same shit as always. Let me be clear, Trans is the only person to give specific info that helped show me where I was wrong. All you've done is essentially posted links for plate tectonics as a whole, and then say "figure it out yourself". It's like if someone asked for directions, and you said "west".
COULDNT understand what was being told to you
OR
WOULDNT understand
take your pick...

Handing out ultimatums like your a boss, who do you think you are? Your a presumptuous old ass, and you have done nothing to show that you, yourself, can adequately argue the points we have discussed. You think posting some generic links and spouting your praise for a widely accepted theory makes you smart? It makes you look like you don't understand what your saying, so you'll just go along with what all the other people are saying. You're just a little sheep scared to stray from the flock.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2014
Trans is the only person to give specific info that helped show me where I was wrong

@scroof
actually, if you go back, Torbjorn_Larsson_OM also addressed you as well as others
All you've done is essentially posted links for plate tectonics as a whole, and then say "figure it out yourself"

1- it HAD the information you SPECIFICALLY asked for
2- I am not here to hold your hand
just because you wanted spelled out pat answers and we didnt give them to you, you went all stupid and started TROLLING
Handing out ultimatums like your a boss, who do you think you are

I handed out NO ultimatums... but I DO calls-em likes I see's-em
you have done nothing to show that you, yourself, can adequately argue the points we have discussed

wrong again, squirt
re-read and then actually delve into those links... then tell me I didnt provide you with the answers... prove I didnt, and we can then talk point by point
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2014
You think posting ...makes you smart?

@scroof
do you think posting links to creation sites on a SCIENCE site makes YOU look smart?
I dont care what people think about me, only that I try to get the information right
It makes you look like you don't understand ... a little sheep scared to stray from the flock.

you also seem to forget that the theories linked are SUPPORTED BY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS
now... given that you posted a link that is supported only by biblical supposition and conjecture, and did NOT have the peer reviewed science to back it up... who is the REAL sheep in dumb*ss's clothing here? (hint: starts with Y and ends with U, and an O in the middle)

You came to TROLL and promote an INVALID assumption which has been proven wrong by EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE which OBEYS THE LAWS OF PHYSICS and is ALSO INCLUDED IN THE LINKS LEFT ABOVE
seems to me that YOU are the idiot here, not I or the rest of the people that tried to assist you.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2014
More yelling and screaming from stump, how surprising. Temper tantrums aren't a very good reflection of character you know.
Caliban
5 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2014
More yelling and screaming from stump, how surprising. Temper tantrums aren't a very good reflection of character you know.


How very 3rd Grade.

Perhaps this is why you have no understanding/willful disunderstanding --your education hasn't proceeded far enough yet for the subject of plate tectonics to have been introduced in your educational curriculum?

Luckily, there is a solution handy to this difficulty: Read the book.

Scroofinator
1 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2014
Caliban, are you trying to sell me a book or something?

Here's another link to further back up my initial claims, found by "your scientists".
http://www.cbc.ca....2569564
I doubt I'd find this information in your book
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2014
Here's the link for the article from phys.org:
http://phys.org/n...ath.html
Caliban
5 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2014
Here's the link for the article from phys.org:
http://phys.org/n...ath.html


Plentiful water in the mantle doesn't in any way back up your claim, instead quite the opposite.

You would find this, and much more useful and enlightening information besides, if you would set aside your willful disunderstanding and actually look for the facts, rather than trying to bolster your slippery-slope Creationist "Hydroplate Theory'.

You can check the book out from your local library at zero cost to you.

Nik_2213
5 / 5 (1) Apr 03, 2014
Speaking of links... Maggnus, sorry, that belated link to the Gilgamesh 'flood tablet' book.

Link to Amazon UK, but surely available elsewhere.
http://www.amazon..._title_0
Nik_2213
4 / 5 (1) Apr 30, 2014
The book...
Bought it, read it, gave it five stars.
However it will really, really infuriate a lot of people because the tablet in question carries a version that predates the noachian mega-ship absurdities by a millenium, and actually makes sense...

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.