Wrong. And twisting my words at that. I thought we were presenting facts here, not playing word games.
And these layers are far too hard and dense for surface rock to push down through them. Subduction is a myth. That leaves lift or expansion. Or both.
https://kgov.com/plate-tectonics-why-subduction-does-not-happen
I can see the need to limit spam on here, but a 3 post limit is a little much when one is responding to multiple people in one thread.
2014 Update:
Really?
Of course evolution is falsifiable.
2 Likes
But you’re not really replying, just repeating bogus claims without investigating them. One problem is that “hard” and “dense” do not determine whether rock can push through something. Liquid mercury is much more dense than any of the rocks in question, yet you can push your finger into it easily, if you’re not worried about toxicity issues.
“These layers” have very different properties. The uppermost mantle, in the lithosphere, does act as a rigid layer, with the occasional weak zone such as at the edge of a plate. But even in the crust, the heat and pressure as you get a few kilometers down is enough to cause the rock to do some bending and flowing as well - a very deep borehole does not stay open unless it’s forced to. (This is another lie hidden in the “no cracks” claim that’s one of AiG’s big “proofs” for a young earth. Solid rocks do have some capacity to bend, depending on their structure, the pressure, the temperature, and the amount of time they have to adjust. If you’re wondering, the other 11 proofs are bogus, too.) Together, the uppermost mantle and the crust make up the plate and subduct together.
The asthenosphere is squishy, allowing plates to slowly shove into it. The sinking rock is quite dense as well. This sinking is demonstrated by the pattern of earthquakes at the subduction zones, which follow the path of the subducting plate edge deeper and deeper into the earth (look up Wadati-Benioff zones for detailed data). It is shown by the arc of volcanoes that occurs above the sinking plate, with lava compositions reflecting the melting of parts of the sinking plate. It can be traced by the pictures generated by analyzing patterns in earthquake waves, which show the relatively cold and dense sinking plate moving under the other plate. Atlas of the underworld: Slab remnants in the mantle, their sinking history, and a new outlook on lower mantle viscosity - ScienceDirect is an article that seems to be open access (I don’t think I’m logged into anything special and it opens for me) that discusses the global pattern of sunken plate slabs and related features. We can measure it happening by GPS, as plates converge. For example, the 2011 massive quake in Japan moved rock up to over 50 m in some places - it went somewhere. About 670 km down, the mantle does become denser than the typical sinking slab, so subduction generally stops there and the slabs float there.
Walt Brown is not a reliable source. One page of names of people not keen on plate tectonics is not impressive, especially given that some of their objections may date back to well before modern data based on the one person I recognize on the list and others have no particular relevant expertise indicated. The source for the list of names is a strange contrarian journal, not a particularly credible source (what’s geoplasma supposed to mean, anyway? Except for the thin atmosphere above about 90 km, the earth doesn’t have much plasma, and plasma is big in some “we know this is true because the aliens psychically told us” circles.). Brown’s webpage that you cite also denies seafloor spreading, but again it is demonstrated to be happening today by the same lines of evidence as subduction, with only shallow earthquakes, hot rock rising underneath them, volcanism reflecting deeper mantle sources, etc. To make an honest and credible argument, you must actually investigate the evidence, rather than repeating the lie that subduction (or evolution, or any other scientific model that seems inconvenient for your position) is a myth. As is, your approach just makes you look foolish and doesn’t help your cause.
5 Likes
Creationists reject nearly all of biology, geology, and astronomy. I don’t think I am the one playing word games.
Christians in the 17th century were claiming that Heliocentrism went against the Bible in the very same way modern YEC’s are claiming that the consensus of geology and biology is going against the Bible.
2 Likes
“I do actually think that pastors and youth pastors need to be held to a higher standard than lay Christians.”
Thanks for this, James. I’m curious, why do you think those pastors and youth pastors haven’t in the past been held to a higher standard? Why aren’t they being held to a higher standard now? The volume of lies by AiG is considerable, and hard to ignore after all, right?
One of his assertions: Common descent. That is disproven pretty much every time cross-breeding goes too far and the resultant offspring is either dead, unable to live in the wild or sterile. There are limits to the changes that either plants or animals can survive. Evolution must deny this or get around it somehow.
So according to you, evolution isn’t falsifiable, … and yet here now you have a link to something that allegedly ‘falsifies’ evolution. Do you never tire of the lies and self-contradictions being fed to you from AIG and ideologically anti-evolutionary sites, Patrick? If I were you, I’d be ticked that I had been lied to so much and demand an accounting from them. But instead you keep going back to them for more of the same. When people try to live in delusional worlds, reality doesn’t go away. It’s still there. You’ve tried the desperate “Gish Gallop” on this site, but here such tactics to cover up truth just don’t work. When brought out into the light of scriptures as elucidated by faithful, thoughtful readers and reality as understood by mainstream science, none of the stuff fed to you by AIG or other sources has held up.
7 Likes
My thoughts also. But enough about current events, let’s get back to the topic at hand…
I think that is is one of the biggest threats to spreading the gospel in today’s world is in linking it to to what can only be described as fantasy. How will people take the Bible seriously if it is seen as divorced from reality?
6 Likes
Additionally, what happens when a Christian witnesses to someone and pushes creationism. How is the non-believer supposed to take that person seriously? Augustine has probably already been quoted, but just in case . . .
1 Like
Common descent is disproven by the very thing we would expect from common descent and evolution? Common descent is disproven by the observation of the evolution of separate species?
What about the populations you are cross-breeding? Do offspring between individuals within the same species produce viable and fertile offspring? Yep, they sure do. Obviously, no limit has been reached.
I gave 3 conditions. Tell me how you can crossbreed a chihuahua with a grey wolf. Then tell me how long that chihuahua would last in the wild.
It’s like any religious belief. A matter of faith. More than that, dogma. People ignore the facts to keep their hold to evolution. DNA alone should have been the stake in the heart to the poor theory.
You do know that DNA is amazingly confirmatory and consistent with evolution? It did help a great deal wth determining relationships between species that were not recognized.
2 Likes
No, I don’t see any consistency with DNA and evolution. DNA serves exactly the opposite purpose, to limit changes. So does natural selection. The fittest don’t always survive to reproduce. Sometimes it’s the luckiest or the sneakiest, but it’s never the one who is different. Not in sexual reproduction.
Can you please clarify? Thank you!
This shows a basic lack of knowledge of evolutionary theory. Lucky is something associated with individuals or maybe a small group, and evolution occurs in populations. If you have any desire to learn what evolution entails, I would suggest further study perhaps with a course like this:
1 Like
You can breed a chihuahua to a chihuahua and get a chihuahua. The fact we can’t breed some dog breeds with one another is one of the biggest pieces of evidence FOR evolution because it is speciation in action right in front of our eyes.
6 Likes
Then please tell us which differences between the human and chimp genomes could not be produced by known and observed processes of mutation.
2 Likes