From: Glenn Morton (glennmorton@entouch.net)
Date: Mon Oct 06 2003 - 07:15:27 EDT
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of allenroy
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 11:22 PM
To: Glenn Morton
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: RATE
Glenn Morton wrote:
Think about it Allen. If the circulation moves with the plate, then the
hotspot moves with the plate also and doesn't string out a lot of volcanoes.
Not to mention you have to have 4000 km of differential motion in a few
years with that kind viscosity. It simply won't happen.
Allen replied:
On the other hand, The hotspot may be moving on it's own, independent of the
movement of the athenesphere of the upper mantle. [end Allens reply]
It does have some movement but it is a minority of the movement. A recent
article in Geology pointed out that it moves at 44 mm per year. But it
won't move an thousands of kilometers per year.
Allen wrote:
As I just mentioned, the hotspot may not be related to the movement of the
plates. The one proposed for Yellowstone has apparently moved independent
of the direction of plate movement. [end of allen's reply]
It is speed that is required Allen. The viscosity is a measure of energy
dissipation. Highly viscous materials move slowly because you can put a lot
of energy in to the system but it dissipates the energy as heat rapidly. I
don't think you understand rheology very well.
Allen asked:
Is this at the 10^22 poise coefficient? I'm sure you know that Baumgardner
proposes that the coefficient drops dramatically under special conditions.
What are the calculations for lower coefficients that baumgardner proposes.
[end allen reply
Baumgardner's view is neither good science nor does it solve problems. Two
examples. The approach in question creates bigger problems than it solves.
To move the plates as they suggest requires the release of 10^28 joules of
energy. (Steven A. Austin, D. Russell Humphreys, Larry Vardiman, John R.
Baumgardner, Andrew A. Snelling and Kurt P. Wise, "Catastrophic Plate
Tectonics: A Global Flood Model of Earth History," in Robert T. Walsh,
editor, The Third International Conference on Creationism, (Pittsburgh:
Creation Science Fellowship, 1994), p. 612)
That much energy would vaporize the earth. Does Baumgardner have a means to
cool the earth? No, he appeals to the miraculous.
"These observations all point to the need to remove large amounts of heat
from extensive bodies of rock in the earth in order to account for the
geological change proposed for the Flood. It is the author's conclusion
that this cannot happen within the framework of time?invariant physics."
Baumgardner, 1986, p. 21.
Since only god can change the constants, this is a miracle. There is
nothing wrong with appealing to the miraculous, but why do it only on this?
Why not simply say the flood was miraculous and quite trying to explain it?
No one can prove you wrong if the global flood was a miracle.
I wrote:
But Allen, these are changes due to the decay of radionuclides after they
come to the surface. it isn't the same as merely a chemical change.
Allen replied
That is your [and other's] interpretation.
During volcanism, in general the argon escapes leaving potassium to decay to
argon which then builds up in the volcanic rocks.
This has been shown to be an invalid assumption.
"As with all isotopic dating methods, there are a number of assumptions that
must be fulfilled for a K-Ar age to relate to events in the geological
history of the region being studied. ... [Assumption] 3. The radiogenic
argon measured in a sample was produced by in situ decay of 40K in the
interval since the rock crystallized or was recrystallized. Violations of
this assumption are not uncommon." McDougal, I. and Harrison, T., 1988,
Geochronology and Thermochronology by the 40Ar/39Ar Method. pg. 11
If something is "not uncommon" that means that it is common. So, this
assumption that measured radiogenic argon is the in situ decay of 40K into
40A is COMMONLY false.
[end of allens reply]
I said it wasn't perfect. But why would there be more argon on the older
islands? You still havn't explained it. You have, above, only explained why
you don't think it should be a problem. Explain it. How does it happen in
the flood?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 06 2003 - 07:16:27 EDT