Ocean Floor Bathymetry and Plate Cooling during CPT

[TrueCreation]

So which is it? Exponential increase of daughter isotope with depth or linear relation? Definitely cannot be both!

--Of course it can be both. In the first quote I say that as you increase in depth, you increase in the relative abundance of stable daughter isotopes. In the second quote I say basically the same thing, the linear (top to bottom) distribution of parent vs. daughter isotopes (because when I say that there is an increase in stable daughter isotopes with increased depth, I am speaking relative to the parent isotope). I didn't think I should have been that clear on this because those reading with a most basic background in isotope geology know that my first quote taken in context is a relation in abundance for daughter and parent isotopes.

Accelerated decay? Radiometric decay is constant, so why the accelerated decay?

--Accelerated is inferred from the fact that if CPT has occured, the geo-column and its geologic remnants most plausibly have been deposited rapidly because of the tectonics behind the overall mechanics of catastrophic earth systems. Also, if taken strictly, the assertion that radiometric decay is constant isn't very accurate, but generally speaking it goes. I don't pretend to know why decay rate would have fluctuated in the past, I only know that if indirect evidence of such a variation can be found, it serves to support an episode of accelerated decay. How it occured as it pertains to my research can be left to the nuclear physicists.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net

 

[rdjon]

Originally posted by TrueCreation
--Of course it can be both. In the first quote I say that as you increase in depth, you increase in the relative abundance of stable daughter isotopes. In the second quote I say basically the same thing, the linear (top to bottom) distribution of parent vs. daughter isotopes (because when I say that there is an increase in stable daughter isotopes with increased depth, I am speaking relative to the parent isotope). I didn't think I should have been that clear on this because those reading with a most basic background in isotope geology know that my first quote taken in context is a relation in abundance for daughter and parent isotopes.

Fair enough, just wasn't clear to me thats all and I have more than a basic background in isotope geology...might want to reword it to make it clear?

--Accelerated is inferred from the fact that if CPT has occured, the geo-column and its geologic remnants most plausibly have been deposited rapidly because of the tectonics behind the overall mechanics of catastrophic earth systems. Also, if taken strictly, the assertion that radiometric decay is constant isn't very accurate, but generally speaking it goes. I don't pretend to know why decay rate would have fluctuated in the past, I only know that if indirect evidence of such a variation can be found, it serves to support an episode of accelerated decay. How it occured as it pertains to my research can be left to the nuclear physicists.

Seeing as this is the crux of your argument, this is somewhat circular reasoning to me. CPT needs accelerated decay (as this is the point of your paper), accelerated decay is inferred from CPT. Also you will need some references here to show that decay can be accelerated as the accepted veiw is that it is constant. Without that reference to show this arguments veracity, this paper is pretty pointless. Sorry to be so harsh, but that's science

Jon

 

[TrueCreation]

Originally posted by rdjon
Fair enough, just wasn't clear to me thats all and I have more than a basic background in isotope geology...might want to reword it to make it clear?

--I will do this, it may be better in the general scheme of things for my article and my readers. Thanks

Seeing as this is the crux of your argument, this is somewhat circular reasoning to me. CPT needs accelerated decay (as this is the point of your paper), accelerated decay is inferred from CPT.

--Well not really. CPT by the runaway subduction regime does not 'need' accelerated decay in order for the process to be triggered. An in press paper[ref 8] on the initiation of the runaway regime is forthcoming by Baumgardner and is cited and some implications discussed in my paper in the midportions of section 3. Accelerated decay is only one point of many topics discussed in my paper. I would consider the mere dependence of the temperature of the oceanic lithosphere as the crux of discussion in my paper. Runaway subduction only needs a mere temperature perturbation in the mantle in order for the runaway regime to be initiated.

Also you will need some references here to show that decay can be accelerated as the accepted veiw is that it is constant. Without that reference to show this arguments veracity, this paper is pretty pointless.

--I am merely modeling the processes of catastrophic plate dynamics during CPT, with it I discuss the implications thereof IF we are to attribute accelerated decay as the initiation or if we are to use it at all. This may be a good point to be discussed in the discussions/conclusions section, though to expound on the physics of accelerated decay or something isn't my bit with the paper.

Sorry to be so harsh, but that's science

--Yes, well Wegener himself formulated the theory of continental drift and plate motion without any speculation on a viable mechanism. I am working in a similar arena.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net

 

[Blindman]

Should you not find evidence for CPT before you vow the veracity of your paper. Especially seeing it is in direct contradiction to excepted CPT theory. How about a chapter explaining CPT in your view, because it seems your view diverges from popular theory..(especially as to the cause of global sea depth decline)

From what I have read it (CPT) involves plates moving horizontally at meters a second.

Every hour another 14 km of magna is exposed to the ocean.??? (Ohhh my…Love to see that). Currently continents and ocean basins move at about a few centimeters a year but CPT is suggesting that continents and ocean basins moved at a rate about 10 billion times faster.

They (CPT believers) would have you believe that this event happened over a short time. At the most a few tens of years.
And it was a global flood that resulted from this upheaval..


How about ICE age?? Most likely long term out come of planet wide volcanic events.. How about the land your standing on colliding with the mountains at about 7kmph. The Himalayas would turn to lava, which would spew over everything. (present day analogy).

The constant shaking would have turn rock to sand, which would have consumed everything.

Even worst, they are placing their evidence at the boundaries of understanding.. Their evidences come from times of which there is little left of the original lithosphere.

There is about as much evidence for CPT as there is for god… None what so ever…

Get a grip and stop trying to prove god..

 

[TrueCreation]

Should you not find evidence for CPT before you vow the veracity of your paper.

--Of course, but this is not going to be discussed in my paper. The Venusian evidence is the only thing along this line that has been discussed, but this is because it shed light on the universal correlation of the triggering mechanism.

Especially seeing it is in direct contradiction to excepted CPT theory.

--Is it? I don't think so.

How about a chapter explaining CPT in your view, because it seems your view diverges from popular theory..(especially as to the cause of global sea depth decline)

--I will be explaining more on general CPT and runaway subduction in the discussion or an introduction section. And no, if you have read my paper, you would know this does not 'diverge from popular theory' especially as to the dynamics of ocean bathymetry.

Every hour another 14 km of magna is exposed to the ocean.??? (Ohhh my…Love to see that). Currently continents and ocean basins move at about a few centimeters a year but CPT is suggesting that continents and ocean basins moved at a rate about 10 billion times faster.

--Stop asking your little brother to do your math. But yes, plate divergence would have been quick.

They (CPT believers) would have you believe that this event happened over a short time. At the most a few tens of years.
And it was a global flood that resulted from this upheaval..

--Thats what the data indicate would happen, yes, raised ocean basins.

How about ICE age?? Most likely long term out come of planet wide volcanic events..

--We already went over this. Yes, there probably was an ice age.

How about the land your standing on colliding with the mountains at about 7kmph. The Himalayas would turn to lava, which would spew over everything. (present day analogy).

--No, actually, the Himalayan orogeny would have been created during the event, along with the rockies, alps, andes, etc.

The constant shaking would have turn rock to sand, which would have consumed everything.

--Would it have? And is that really a problem? Have you never studied the geologic record?

Even worst, they are placing their evidence at the boundaries of understanding.. Their evidences come from times of which there is little left of the original lithosphere.

--Theres much more data to be studied in those geologic remnants than you would have any idea then it seems.

There is about as much evidence for CPT as there is for god… None what so ever…

Get a grip and stop trying to prove god..

--You have extremely poor logic and deductive skills. Get a grip and quit posting until you read up on the geophysical literature because your making yourself look horrible. I'm trying to save you from looking like a fool so take a couple of months/years off and order a couple of books--I suggest my reference list in my article, ref #1 in particular. Don't forget to open them and read them thoroughly.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net

 

[Blindman]

--You have extremely poor logic and deductive skills.

Well there much more advanced then your mentor John Baumgardner.

Baumgardner also asserts that ALL ocean floor (present-day) was formed during the flood (~4000 years ago)

LOL.

<I> Baumgardner 1994.</I>
A critical issue in any model for earth history that accepts the Bible as accurate and true is what was the mechanism for this catastrophe that so transformed the face of the earth in such a brief span of time.

Ho Ho Ho.. Because the bible is true so is my theory.. LOL

<I> Baumgardner. </I>
because the earth science community neglected and suppressed the evidences for catastrophism

And paranoid.

<I> Baumgardner 1997.</I>
The same kind of uniformitarian 'glasses' prevent them (his scientific peers) from giving much attention to the evidences for catastrophism in the sedimentary record.

And a total disrespect of his peers…


TrueCreation.

No, actually, the Himalayan orogeny would have been created during the event, along with the rockies, alps, andes, etc.

This is completely inconsistent with a CPT.
Approximate age of mountain systems
Himalayan mountains 15My
Alps 30My
Rocky Mountains 100My
Source:
http://www.okbu.edu/academics/natsci/earth/geolcolumn/


Your ignorance is showing.

The Venusian evidence is the only thing along this line that has been discussed,

There is only circumstantial evidence for global resurfacing of Venus. Primary evidence is the lack of impact craters. The resurfacing is thought to have taken place over a period of 10 to 50 million years as your paper states. A little longer then the CPT models suggests. The causes and structure of the resurfacing is still hotly debated.

The only analogy to earth was during the Archean Eon 2.5Billion-3.8 billion years ago.
Source:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2002/pdf/1759.pdf

From TrueCreation PAPER…
Regardless, the effects of catastrophic plate tectonics for continental inundation have been shown to be well founded in this paper and the results are tenable.

.

How you can say the results are tenable when CPT is totally unproven. Your paper is a mockery of modern geology.


If you don’t like the heat get out of the kitchen.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Truecreation, I might only be a humble PhD student, but I reviewed many papers for peer-reviewed journals. If I get a paper written in this kind of pompous, unintelligable style on my desk I mark the sections I do not understand and ask for a rewrite.

Maybe they like this 'ivory tower' approach still in your field, but that is than just a pity.

 

[TrueCreation]

Well there much more advanced then your mentor John Baumgardner.

--Obviously, your the geophysics expert!

LOL.

--Please give me your thesis on why that is so funny. Link and quote mining doesn't cut it.

Ho Ho Ho.. Because the bible is true so is my theory.. LOL

--Well if you don't even want to consider it as a possibility, then step out of the arena because you've made your decision prejudicially.

And paranoid.

--Um, no, Baumgardner is right on this point. Even from the paper you cite subsequently on the Venusian resurfacing, "resistance to the model came most strongly from geologists unhappy with a catastrophic model that challenged the <i>accepted belief</i> in uniformitarianism."

This is completely inconsistent with a CPT.
Approximate age of mountain systems
Himalayan mountains 15My
Alps 30My
Rocky Mountains 100My
Source:
http://www.okbu.edu/academics/natsci/earth/geolcolumn/


Your ignorance is showing.

--My ignorance? Your the one who has just shown that those ages you've cited are <i>consistent</i> with CPT. You don't know what you are talking about here.

There is only circumstantial evidence for global resurfacing of Venus. Primary evidence is the lack of impact craters. The resurfacing is thought to have taken place over a period of 10 to 50 million years as your paper states. A little longer then the CPT models suggests. The causes and structure of the resurfacing is still hotly debated.

--A little longer than the CPT model suggests, yes, but then again, CPT model also suggests than Cambrian+ sediments were deposited during the process.

How you can say the results are tenable when CPT is totally unproven.

--Science doesn't have ANYTHING to do with PROOF, how many times must I educate you on this point? The model which I have proposed and my explanations and elaboration on the relevance of the oceanic surface heat flow for resultant ocean floor bathymetry are correct, you have yet to challenge much anything which I actually talk about in the paper. Why?

Your paper is a mockery of modern geology.

--Modern geologists would also read up on the subject before commenting.

If you don’t like the heat get out of the kitchen.

--Your unwillingness to learn anything in this thread on the subjects in my paper saddens me. Your pejudicial mind-set does also.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net

 

[TrueCreation]

Truecreation, I might only be a humble PhD student...

--What is your Ph.D in?

but I reviewed many papers for peer-reviewed journals.

--On what subjects?

If I get a paper written in this kind of pompous, unintelligable style on my desk I mark the sections I do not understand and ask for a rewrite.

--How is my paper pompous? And who ever said that I didn't want to modify it before I submit it for peer-review? That was the idea in making a thread for discussing its veracity and potential modifications for clarity.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net

 

[EvilPoet]

Off topic question ...

TrueCreation,

In a post that you made on 4-27 you stated that you were "agnostic as to the history of the earth, life, and the cosmos." This has confused me since I read it. I guess curiosity got the better of me so I have to ask - what exactly does it mean to be agnostic towards the history of the earth, life and the cosmos?

 

[TrueCreation]

In a post that you made on 4-27 you stated that you were "agnostic as to the history of the earth, life, and the cosmos." This has confused me since I read it. I guess curiosity got the better of me so I have to ask - what exactly does it mean to be agnostic towards the history of the earth, life and the cosmos?

--Very good question. What I mean when I say that I am an "agnostic as to the history of the earth, life, and the cosmos" is that I realize that I cannot know for sure what has occured in the past in regards to the origin or evolution of the earth, life, and the cosmos. I agree with scientific methodology in that in regards to the past, there can only be degrees of plausibility, rather than an either/or. I do not know that the evolution of life on earth has been occuring for the past 3.5 Ga, let alone that all of life on earth has a common ancestor. But I also do not know that a flood has occured which has left its extensively complicated imprint in the geologic record. In all technicallity and to speak strictly am really not an old earther, or a young earther--the only reason I label myself as a YEC is because I find that scientific initiatives are very promising to reveal the increasing plausibility of a young earth model. There is so much to be researched and interpreted, I simply do not have enough information to make any viable conclusion, I only have my views on what we can expect for future developments. There are so many scientists doing research in the mainstream consensus, while us YEC's still have to develop a consensus from which we may work from. But there are very few YECist scientists doing research, some of them are even doing research which is corrupt from their own inability to preform the research or from their pre-conceived ideas which may give them a tendency to dismiss data. I think some of us YEC's have made such great developments in spite of this lack of researchers, that it is promising that the future will lend us increasing credibility and a slowely but surely progression towards a potentially correct view of earth history.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net

 

[EvilPoet]

TrueCreation,

Oh ok, now I see what you mean. Thanks
for the clarification, much appreciated.

 

[Blindman]

--Well if you don't even want to consider it as a possibility, then step out of the arena because you've made your decision prejudicially.

To even consider it is preposterous. There are thousands of religious books, teachings excreta. To even consider truth in one mean’s you would have to consider all the religious teachings around the world. Have you done any investigation into any of the other major religions as to the truthfulness of your paper? I don’t think so, it would be a waist of time.
I would say that you are the prejudicial one.

Science doesn't have ANYTHING to do with PROOF, how many times must I educate you on this point?

Oh no *L*…… you should be a comedian. So what, you just make stuff up as you go? I thought that the point of making all those calculations was to try to assert some form of proof. Like the ocean should be this deep in my theory and my proof is that it is consistent with the evidence (measurement of ocean depth).

CPT is just religious doctrine, how many times must I iterate this.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Originally posted by TrueCreation
--What is your Ph.D in?

--On what subjects?

--How is my paper pompous? And who ever said that I didn't want to modify it before I submit it for peer-review? That was the idea in making a thread for discussing its veracity and potential modifications for clarity.

real nice...you are already setting me up so that you can say that your work is in my field and hence I have no qualifications to judge your work.

There is a thread in the biology forum, where i lightly describe my project. If you are really interested you can look up that. I already made several points in several threads, but apparently they were not intellectual enough for you.

My colleague had a paper in nature last year. He rewrote it more than 30 times resulting in a paper that can be read without any effort (by anyone), without compromising the data. Look at some nature articles and study them.

Your paper is pompous in the use of language, in the arrogant presentation of your own thoughts and lack of discussion of your peers. Maybe someone told you once that great scientific writing should be like that, but they were obviously lying.

 

[TrueCreation]

To even consider it is preposterous.

--Then you have nothing to discuss, you can exit the thread now.

There are thousands of religious books, teachings excreta. To even consider truth in one mean’s you would have to consider all the religious teachings around the world. Have you done any investigation into any of the other major religions as to the truthfulness of your paper? I don’t think so, it would be a waist of time.
I would say that you are the prejudicial one.

--No, because I am not decided, I have no conclusion in this regard. I'm sorry if I don't have inhuman research skills like you do, obviously you then must have done such research to conclude it is all bunk? Because you have made this conclusion, I have not. If someone is interested in providing their theory which may rectify the worthiness of a certain geological aspect of another religious book, great, lets see it. I have not seen much--part of that must be because a flood is the usual catastrophic event in most religious doctrines.

Oh no *L*…… you should be a comedian. So what, you just make stuff up as you go?

--Please give me your thesis on which part I have made up. I created this thread so that we can discuss the scientific veracity of my paper, you don't like to do a lot of this.

I thought that the point of making all those calculations was to try to assert some form of proof. Like the ocean should be this deep in my theory and my proof is that it is consistent with the evidence (measurement of ocean depth).

--No no no no no. It isn't about proof, its about plausibility, do you read much on science? You should reword your assertion to say, "...the ocean should be this deep in my theory and my evidence is that it is consistent with mathematical predictability for the known geodynamic processes involved".

CPT is just religious doctrine, how many times must I iterate this.

--You can reiterate it as many times as you want, but you only make yourself sound more and more like hovind and his incessent assertions about Evolutionary theory as religious.

--I'm sorry if my interest in the potential feasibility of a young earth bothers you. I guess it doesn't matter if anyone could ever show that a global flood is entirely plausible given the scientific findings and research--we've already decided its bunk!

-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net

 

[TrueCreation]

real nice...you are already setting me up so that you can say that your work is in my field and hence I have no qualifications to judge your work.

--Heck no, I'm not trying to set you up, I was just curious. It doesn't matter to me whether you are in the field or not, only that you know and understand the relevant processes involved before we start making conclusions.

There is a thread in the biology forum, where i lightly describe my project. If you are really interested you can look up that. I already made several points in several threads, but apparently they were not intellectual enough for you.

--No need for the sarcasm, I don't read the content posted in the biology forum, but I found the post you are speaking of--you are a developmental biologist.

My colleague had a paper in nature last year. He rewrote it more than 30 times resulting in a paper that can be read without any effort (by anyone), without compromising the data.

--Who said I don't want to rewrite my article to perfection? That was the reason I started this thread, so I could correct anything wrong with it.

Look at some nature articles and study them.

--I don't get the journal Nature, but I do get <i>Science</i>, <i>Geophysical Research letters</i>, and the <i>Journal of Geophysical Research</i>, I study their contents regularly.

Your paper is pompous in the use of language, in the arrogant presentation of your own thoughts and lack of discussion of your peers.

--Could you give me a couple examples? I would appreciate it, I am trying to get something out of this discussion so that I may improve on my paper.

--And what do you mean by 'lack of discussion of your peers'?

Maybe someone told you once that great scientific writing should be like that, but they were obviously lying.

--No one has ever told me this and this was not the intention of my paper.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net

 

[Blindman]

Then you have nothing to discuss, you can exit the thread now.

Awe just because I don’t believe in god.

I have not seen much--part of that must be because a flood is the usual catastrophic event in most religious doctrines.

Puzzling, you don’t have any knowledge but you know what the usual doctrine is..
There’s a nice one from around my home state, that during the dreamtime (aboriginal pre history) a large snake (the rainbow serpent) made it way across the country, as it did it created the rivers and the mountains. No flood story but plenty of geology.

I created this thread so that we can discuss the scientific veracity of my paper, you don't like to do a lot of this.

Your paper has no “SCIENTIFIC VERACITY “

You’re the one digging the hole.. I started simply, but as your rhetoric slid into a closed loop of denial and aggressive contempt I decided to play the game.

You just can’t open your mind to the fact that CPT is a religious concept designed to fit the bible stories of the flood. Your attempt to resolve problems with the model is a futile attempt to justify CPT and ultimately god. Your blind prejudice is not the hallmark of a great scientist, but that of a quack.

If you did not what scientists to debate your papers why did you post it here. Surly if would be better suited to a religious forum.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

once more than.

your abstract is just a stepwise summation of what you are planning to discuss in your paper.

Abstracts are incredibly important. Most people will only ever see the abstract of your paper and never read on. Make your abstract count (I always fuck them up). Yours reads like a highschool abstract. An abstract is not a summation. You have to sell your paper preferably in under 200 words. Why is your paper important and what is your most important data and what is the grand conclusion we can gather from it. And you don't have to necessarily address these points separately, but some things are logically connected.

I haven't go the faintest clue why I should bother continue reading your paper and that is not good. Sell it.

 

[TrueCreation]

Awe just because I don’t believe in god.

--No, because you admittantly will not stop to consider the possibility.

Puzzling, you don’t have any knowledge but you know what the usual doctrine is..

--Don't you read talk.origins?

There’s a nice one from around my home state, that during the dreamtime (aboriginal pre history) a large snake (the rainbow serpent) made it way across the country, as it did it created the rivers and the mountains. No flood story but plenty of geology.

--Yup, well if someone wants to attempt to scientifically support the story, have at it.

Your paper has no “SCIENTIFIC VERACITY “

--I have been waiting quite tediously for you to support this assertion.

You just can’t open your mind to the fact that CPT is a religious concept designed to fit the bible stories of the flood. Your attempt to resolve problems with the model is a futile attempt to justify CPT and ultimately god.

--Sorry, but if this is the way you want to avoid a real discussion on the veracity of my paper then your dilluding only yourself. If you want to stay in your little cubby hole and not even consider it, then stay out of the thread because you have nothing to say. This is not "a futile attempt to justify CPT and ultimately god", if CPT never occured, this has absolutely nothing to do with the existance of God. I have absolutely no problem in being an old earth evolutionist--but I will not say that I am because I do not see it as conclusive that flood geology could never be a credible alternative. If you are just going to keep parroting your remarks about CPT being a fairy-tale idea, you have nothing to say here.

If you did not what[<i>sic</i>] scientists to debate your papers why did you post it here.

--Thats the thing I WANT scientists to debate and discuss my paper, you have not done this. You only continue wining like Kent Hovind about things being ridiculous without even knowing the relevant processes involved and no evident desire to ever know them.

-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net

 

[TrueCreation]

your abstract is just a stepwise summation of what you are planning to discuss in your paper.

Abstracts are incredibly important. Most people will only ever see the abstract of your paper and never read on. Make your abstract count (I always fuck them up). Yours reads like a highschool abstract. An abstract is not a summation. You have to sell your paper preferably in under 200 words. Why is your paper important and what is your most important data and what is the grand conclusion we can gather from it. And you don't have to necessarily address these points separately, but some things are logically connected.

I haven't go the faintest clue why I should bother continue reading your paper and that is not good. Sell it.

--Thank you for the advice, I will certainly take this into consideration when revising my abstract. I am also going to add a couple pages for an introductory discussion of catastrophic plate tectonics and runaway subduction.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net