Evidence for God from Science

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:Actually believe it or not the fossils had little to do with my theory about continental drift. Yes I agree the continents continue to move. Really you don't think there is any evidence of earthquakes and lave outpourings? Did I propose it happened in one day? How do ocean ridges go counter to the theory that the continents drifted apart?

Not only mid-ocean ridges but various other formations.

The formations do not go counter to continental drift, but for it to happen in a generation it had to be a continental rip.

Apparently the continents had to move 3000km in the last 6000 years.
Seeing that they now expand at a rate of 2-4 cm a year, how fast do you think the initial expansion(explosion) was?

Do you have any claims based on the ocean ridges and other formations, or are you just saying that it disproves rapid drift in the past because you can?

Mastriani wrote:

Where does the 6000 year date come from seeing as Pangea was millions of years ago?

Yes great one you have spoken so it is true.

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Not only mid-ocean ridges but various other formations.
The formations do not go counter to continental drift, but for it to happen in a generation it had to be a continental rip.

Apparently the continents had to move 3000km in the last 6000 years.
Seeing that they now expand at a rate of 2-4 cm a year, how fast do you think the initial expansion(explosion) was?

Do you have any claims based on the ocean ridges and other formations, or are you just saying that it disproves rapid drift in the past because you can?

Well here's a chart showing crustal age base on radiometric dating. It shows gradual formation.


But, knowing that you disaprove of this methodology we can take a direct look at the topography of the ocean floor.

As you can see it shows a ridge down the middle and evenly spaced out ridges forming gradual slopes down either side.

If the rate of drift is much slower today than in the past we would expect to see a different topography. Perhaps plateaus on either side resulting from catastrophic magma releases, along with large ridges getting relatively narrower as one approaches modern ridge formations as rate of drift slowed down.

What do you think?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Not only mid-ocean ridges but various other formations.
The formations do not go counter to continental drift, but for it to happen in a generation it had to be a continental rip.

Apparently the continents had to move 3000km in the last 6000 years.
Seeing that they now expand at a rate of 2-4 cm a year, how fast do you think the initial expansion(explosion) was?

Do you have any claims based on the ocean ridges and other formations, or are you just saying that it disproves rapid drift in the past because you can?

Well here's a chart showing crustal age base on radiometric dating. It shows gradual formation.


But, knowing that you disaprove of this methodology we can take a direct look at the topography of the ocean floor.

As you can see it shows a ridge down the middle and evenly spaced out ridges forming gradual slopes down either side.

If the rate of drift is much slower today than in the past we would expect to see a different topography. Perhaps plateaus on either side resulting from catastrophic magma releases, along with large ridges getting relatively narrower as one approaches modern ridge formations as rate of drift slowed down.

What do you think?

Being that I am not a geologist, nor an expert in tectonics, I would say that the development occurred over many millions of years, and may have at times been expedited by certain cataclysmic events of great magnitude. But then, I am not the authority in this forum.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
If the rate of drift is much slower today than in the past we would expect to see a different topography. Perhaps plateaus on either side resulting from catastrophic magma releases, along with large ridges getting relatively narrower as one approaches modern ridge formations as rate of drift slowed down.

What do you think?

I think that the rate of ocean sinking and contintal drift is unknown and your claim that the observations of ocean topogrpahy verify a slow drift are baseless.

I see no reason to think that faster spreading requires more magma than slower spreading.

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
If the rate of drift is much slower today than in the past we would expect to see a different topography. Perhaps plateaus on either side resulting from catastrophic magma releases, along with large ridges getting relatively narrower as one approaches modern ridge formations as rate of drift slowed down.

What do you think?

I think that the rate of ocean sinking and contintal drift is unknown and your claim that the observations of ocean topogrpahy verify a slow drift are baseless.

I see no reason to think that faster spreading requires more magma than slower spreading.

the rate of continental drift is known, whether you think it is or not. deep ocean trenches and faults are still shifting. faster spreading does not require more magma, it just means that the magma is going to come out faster, and pile up more, making it appear that it requires more magma. or perhaps a faster drift rate would cause a catastrophic event (earthquake, volcano, etc.) BGood is right in his claims (which arent really his claims, he's just relaying them from more knowledgable people.)

Because the rate is known for today does not mean the rate was known for a thousand years ago.

I know that everyone thinks that alternative theories would have different observations, but that is bogus. I see it all around on hoorified faces, b-b-b-but if we d-d-dont have billion of years nothing will make sense.

You say look it takes millions of years see look their it is. Well it is still their if you are wrong, and their are alternative explanations. Here is a few

http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/HydroPlateTheory/

http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword27a.htm

http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dis ... 25-113359/
(chapter 2 & 3)

http://www.ldolphin.org/flood.shtml (well done account, I think)

http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html

Jbuza wrote:Because the rate is known for today does not mean the rate was known for a thousand years ago.

But at some point the continents had to drift roughtly 3000km to create the Atlantic Ocean. No?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:Because the rate is known for today does not mean the rate was known for a thousand years ago.

But at some point the continents had to drift roughtly 3000km to create the Atlantic Ocean. No?

Yes! We cross posted, I added a couple links with theories on that.

Jbuza wrote:Because the rate is known for today does not mean the rate was known for a thousand years ago.

I know that everyone thinks that alternative theories would have different observations, but that is bogus. I see it all around on hoorified faces, b-b-b-but if we d-d-dont have billion of years nothing will make sense.

You say look it takes millions of years see look their it is. Well it is still their if you are wrong, and their are alternative explanations. Here is a few

http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/HydroPlateTheory/

This is the same general account you described above, but it doesn't go into detail regarding the topology of the Atlantic Basin.

Jbuza wrote:http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword27a.htm

This link refers to a posible shift in the entire global crust occurring 530 million years ago and lasting 10 to 15 million years. In which the plates moved several meters per year. Perhaps due to a shift in the magnetic field. It does not support your case.

Jbuza wrote:http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dis ... 25-113359/
(chapter 2 & 3)

This one also refers to movement due to a possible shift in the magnetic field also occuring over several million years, and also not supporting your case.

Jbuza wrote:http://www.ldolphin.org/flood.shtml (well done account, I think)

I'm sorry, I fail to see how this site does anything to explain the topography of the atlantic basin.

Jbuza wrote:http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html

This last sight does not explain your side at all. All it does is bring up seeming problems with plate Tectonics. And it does nothing to explain how a cataclysmic global flood can account for the atlantic basin topography. This does not support your case.

Zenith wrote:..
..the rate of continental drift is known, whether you think it is or not. deep ocean trenches and faults are still shifting. faster spreading does not require more magma, it just means that the magma is going to come out faster, and pile up more, making it appear that it requires more magma. or perhaps a faster drift rate would cause a catastrophic event (earthquake, volcano, etc.) BGood is right in his claims (which arent really his claims, he's just relaying them from more knowledgable people.)

Only assuming a physical only past like the present. A spiritual and physical world would not respond the same way. Just like a ghost would have less friction than a steam train.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:Because the rate is known for today does not mean the rate was known for a thousand years ago.

I know that everyone thinks that alternative theories would have different observations, but that is bogus. I see it all around on hoorified faces, b-b-b-but if we d-d-dont have billion of years nothing will make sense.

You say look it takes millions of years see look their it is. Well it is still their if you are wrong, and their are alternative explanations. Here is a few

http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/HydroPlateTheory/

This is the same general account you described above, but it doesn't go into detail regarding the topology of the Atlantic Basin.

Jbuza wrote:http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword27a.htm

This link refers to a posible shift in the entire global crust occurring 530 million years ago and lasting 10 to 15 million years. In which the plates moved several meters per year. Perhaps due to a shift in the magnetic field. It does not support your case.

Jbuza wrote:http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dis ... 25-113359/
(chapter 2 & 3)

This one also refers to movement due to a possible shift in the magnetic field also occuring over several million years, and also not supporting your case.

Jbuza wrote:http://www.ldolphin.org/flood.shtml (well done account, I think)

I'm sorry, I fail to see how this site does anything to explain the topography of the atlantic basin.

Jbuza wrote:http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html

This last sight does not explain your side at all. All it does is bring up seeming problems with plate Tectonics. And it does nothing to explain how a cataclysmic global flood can account for the atlantic basin topography. This does not support your case.

Yeah sure. I guess your a freakin genius reading 2500 WPM. Dismiss it out of hand if you like, but you didn't even read it all. Some of those links were not intended to prove my specific case but to show that there is evidence that there have been periods of rapid drift.

You have yet to show how your position explains the topography of the atlantic either. You have made claims, that's all. Why don't you explain how uniform drift is proved by the topography of the basin, genius.

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:Because the rate is known for today does not mean the rate was known for a thousand years ago.

I know that everyone thinks that alternative theories would have different observations, but that is bogus. I see it all around on hoorified faces, b-b-b-but if we d-d-dont have billion of years nothing will make sense.

You say look it takes millions of years see look their it is. Well it is still their if you are wrong, and their are alternative explanations. Here is a few

http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/HydroPlateTheory/

This is the same general account you described above, but it doesn't go into detail regarding the topology of the Atlantic Basin.

Jbuza wrote:http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword27a.htm

This link refers to a posible shift in the entire global crust occurring 530 million years ago and lasting 10 to 15 million years. In which the plates moved several meters per year. Perhaps due to a shift in the magnetic field. It does not support your case.

Jbuza wrote:http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dis ... 25-113359/
(chapter 2 & 3)

This one also refers to movement due to a possible shift in the magnetic field also occuring over several million years, and also not supporting your case.

Jbuza wrote:http://www.ldolphin.org/flood.shtml (well done account, I think)

I'm sorry, I fail to see how this site does anything to explain the topography of the atlantic basin.

Jbuza wrote:http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html

This last sight does not explain your side at all. All it does is bring up seeming problems with plate Tectonics. And it does nothing to explain how a cataclysmic global flood can account for the atlantic basin topography. This does not support your case.

Yeah sure. I guess your a freakin genius reading 2500 WPM.

I did read all the links, read them yourself the commentary is correct.

Jbuza wrote:Dismiss it out of hand if you like, but you didn't even read it all.

Again I did read it all. Did you?

Jbuza wrote:Some of those links were not intended to prove my specific case but to show that there is evidence that there have been periods of rapid drift.

Yes, however no-one stated that drift was constant, only incredulity to the notion that the rate could be so high to account for 3000km in 6000 years. The articles stated several meters a year, not 500 meters a year. That's not supporting your case.

Jbuza wrote:You have yet to show how your position explains the topography of the atlantic either.

Read some of those articles you posted. They have some details on what geological formations clued them in.

Jbuza wrote:You have made claims, that's all. Why don't you explain how uniform drift is proved by the topography of the basin, genius.

Not uniform drift, drift does occur to this day. Are you denying that?

Seeing that the ridges form where the mantle is exposed it can be determined that those formations further from the active site are older.

Also ridge patterns away from the ridge are not markedly different to those being formed as I now type.

It's a safe bet that processes which formed those older ridges are the same ones forming ridges today.

Do you see a problem with this analysis?

Wow so what do you read 100,000 + words an hour?

Jbuza wrote:Wow so what do you read 100,000 + words an hour?

I am a very fast reader.

Read the articles yourself, tell me where I erred.
Was that your intent to overwhelm with material?

P.S. That last link was a very long article mostly dealing with formations on land, therefore I only needed to skim to the section on Plate Techtonics.

I answered your critiques, you have yet to answer yours.