User Tag List

Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Smoot vs. Plate Tectonics on Real Science Radio with McHenry Pt. 3

  1. #1
    Super Moderator Jefferson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Seated with Him in the heavenlies
    Posts
    7,497
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 194 Times in 143 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    111480

    Smoot vs. Plate Tectonics on Real Science Radio with McHenry Pt. 3

    Smoot vs. Plate Tectonics on RSR with McHenry Pt. 3

    This is the show from Friday, July 19th, 2019

    SUMMARY:

    * The Navy's Geomorphologist vs Plate Tectonics: Thirty years mapping the ocean floors for the U.S. Navy left geomorphologist Christian Smoot strongly opposed to the theory of plate tectonics. Why? Because under the waves, the ocean floor terrain contradicts the theory in region after region, ocean after ocean, and feature by feature. The actual geography of the oceans falsifies today's unassailable politically correct theory. Smoot gave permission to summarize his evidence against plate tectonics to today's RSR friend Ellen McHenry, who we're now interviewing in the concluding Part 3 of our Smoot vs. Plate Tectonics on RSR with McHenry series.


    * Geologists Opposing Magma Plumes: Just click for RSR's list of scientists who reject magma plumes and who reject plate tectonics. Regarding magma plumes, Dr. Hamiton, 43-year veteran of the U.S. Geological Survey, author of over 100 peer-reviewed papers, Distinguished Senior Scientist, Geophysics Department, Colorado School of Mines, recipient of the closest award to a Nobel Prize in geology, the Penrose Medal, wrote:


    Different rules of evidence apply to current paradigms than to challengers. For current paradigms, evaluation is not necessary, for challengers, proof must be overwhelming before even a discussion is warranted. Appalling papers in support of mantle plumes are now being published in major journals, perhaps indicating that pro-plume reviewers will welcome any debris that will heighten the rampart against a paradigm shift.


    Suppression of dissent is common. I know of many examples of prominent members of the pro-plume community stifling anti-plume reports and research. Although these stiflers might tell themselves that they are maintaining professional standards, "bad science" to them means anything contrary to their own beliefs. Many reviewers block grants to, and prevent publication by, anyone who holds a contrary view.


    Widely accepted assumptions regarding the composition and behavior of the mantle appear to be in error, yet evaluation of alternatives is actively discouraged. The present enthusiasm for plumes represents groupthink that is easily falsified and yet is impervious to evidence. The fact that we are scientists confers no infallibility upon us, and our egos often lead us astray.


    Prof. H.C. Sheth with Bombay's Indian Institute of Technology Bombay and specialist on the Deccan flood basalt provinces, as recently as 1997 supported the plume theory but by 1998 he had made a complete reversal writing in Elsevier's Tectonophysics:



    Superficially the mantle plume explanation seems attractive and has had a tremendous appeal. However, its numerous built-in fallacies, contradictions and failings are unfortunately little discussed in much of the current literature, and it has acquired the status of an unchallengeable dogma and an obvious fact (VII p. 2).


    Few predictions and requirements of the mantle plume model seem to be fulfilled in the actual geology” (VII p. 20).


    The plume idea is ad hoc, artificial, unnecessary, inadequate, and in some cases even self-defeating, and should be abandoned (VII p. 23).


    The popular and widespread notion that hotspot tracks are simply the products of one or more plumes beneath moving plates is actually far from reality (VII p. 22).


    * Hear, See, and Read RSR's Related Plate Tectonics Resources:
    - Geomorphologist Smoot's work against plate tectonics (summary)
    - Smoot vs. Plate Tectonics on RSR with Ellen McHenry (parts 1 & 2)
    - Hotspot Hypothesis (for Hawaii, etc.) Widely Discredited
    - Plate Tectonics: Subduction Doesn't Happen
    - Plate Tectonics: Convection Doesn't Happen
    - Fountains of MAGMA (?) of the Great Deep. Huh?
    - Deep Magma Can't Rise: The Crossover Depth!
    - Catastrophic Plate Tectonics Miracles
    - rsr.org/catastrophic-plate-tectonics
    - rsr.org/hydroplate-theory
    - rsr.org/bryan-nickel
    - Bible verses uniquely supporting various flood models
    - Physical features crying out for explanation.




    * Who Is Ellen McHenry?
    She's the creative genius behing Ellen McHenry's Basement Worshop, textbook author (Rocks & Dirt, The Elements, The Brain, and Mapping the World with Art) and creator of the renowned Brain Hat, used by some of the world's leading museums and science associations. McHenry's textbooks include many major discoveries and a lot of science left out of standard texts because of the questions these raise.

    Also, Ellen's curriculum materials, while usable even in public schools and homeschool coops with diverse members, are not hostile toward the Christian worldview. For more resources, see rsr.org/ellen or go directly to...
    - Hydroplate Theory for Kids page
    - Ellen's No Rain Before the Flood coloring page
    - McHenry's HPT coloring chart
    - BEL's Ellen interview
    - And her famous Brain Hat (above)!



    * Some ITB Resources for Kids:



    * Have You Tried RSR's Multiple Creation Site Search? Our listeners are telling us that this Real Science Radio service, a customized multi-creation-site Google search, is AMAZINGLY effective and a fabulous time saver! And, it's a Google search! Only customized to save you time and make you smarter! Let's say you want to learn about the creationist explanation for the origin of comets to expose the secular model's inability to account for their olivine and other earth-like minerals. By using RSR's Multiple Creation Site Search, powered by Google, you'll be simultaneously searching the four largest and most popular creation sites and our own RSR pages! This tool bypasses the confusion and noise of Wikipedia and the Internet generally and let's you search simultaneously (including countless articles written by friends of Real Science Radio) the websites of Creation Ministries International, Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research, Dr. Walt Brown's creationscience.com site, and our own RSR resources (at kgov.com, 360dayyear.com and youngearth.com). Enjoy!
    WARNING: Graphic video here.

  2. #2
    Toxic Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    19,140
    Thanks
    542
    Thanked 13,011 Times in 9,143 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147853
    Quote Originally Posted by Jefferson View Post
    Smoot vs. Plate Tectonics on RSR with McHenry Pt. 3

    This is the show from Friday, July 19th, 2019

    SUMMARY:

    * The Navy's Geomorphologist vs Plate Tectonics: Thirty years mapping the ocean floors for the U.S. Navy left geomorphologist Christian Smoot strongly opposed to the theory of plate tectonics. Why? Because under the waves, the ocean floor terrain contradicts the theory in region after region, ocean after ocean, and feature by feature. The actual geography of the oceans falsifies today's unassailable politically correct theory. Smoot gave permission to summarize his evidence against plate tectonics to today's RSR friend Ellen McHenry, who we're now interviewing in the concluding Part 3 of our Smoot vs. Plate Tectonics on RSR with McHenry series.


    * Geologists Opposing Magma Plumes: Just click for RSR's list of scientists who reject magma plumes and who reject plate tectonics. Regarding magma plumes, Dr. Hamiton, 43-year veteran of the U.S. Geological Survey, author of over 100 peer-reviewed papers, Distinguished Senior Scientist, Geophysics Department, Colorado School of Mines, recipient of the closest award to a Nobel Prize in geology, the Penrose Medal, wrote:


    Different rules of evidence apply to current paradigms than to challengers. For current paradigms, evaluation is not necessary, for challengers, proof must be overwhelming before even a discussion is warranted. Appalling papers in support of mantle plumes are now being published in major journals, perhaps indicating that pro-plume reviewers will welcome any debris that will heighten the rampart against a paradigm shift.


    Suppression of dissent is common. I know of many examples of prominent members of the pro-plume community stifling anti-plume reports and research. Although these stiflers might tell themselves that they are maintaining professional standards, "bad science" to them means anything contrary to their own beliefs. Many reviewers block grants to, and prevent publication by, anyone who holds a contrary view.


    Widely accepted assumptions regarding the composition and behavior of the mantle appear to be in error, yet evaluation of alternatives is actively discouraged. The present enthusiasm for plumes represents groupthink that is easily falsified and yet is impervious to evidence. The fact that we are scientists confers no infallibility upon us, and our egos often lead us astray.


    Prof. H.C. Sheth with Bombay's Indian Institute of Technology Bombay and specialist on the Deccan flood basalt provinces, as recently as 1997 supported the plume theory but by 1998 he had made a complete reversal writing in Elsevier's Tectonophysics:



    Superficially the mantle plume explanation seems attractive and has had a tremendous appeal. However, its numerous built-in fallacies, contradictions and failings are unfortunately little discussed in much of the current literature, and it has acquired the status of an unchallengeable dogma and an obvious fact (VII p. 2).


    Few predictions and requirements of the mantle plume model seem to be fulfilled in the actual geology” (VII p. 20).


    The plume idea is ad hoc, artificial, unnecessary, inadequate, and in some cases even self-defeating, and should be abandoned (VII p. 23).


    The popular and widespread notion that hotspot tracks are simply the products of one or more plumes beneath moving plates is actually far from reality (VII p. 22).


    * Hear, See, and Read RSR's Related Plate Tectonics Resources:
    - Geomorphologist Smoot's work against plate tectonics (summary)
    - Smoot vs. Plate Tectonics on RSR with Ellen McHenry (parts 1 & 2)
    - Hotspot Hypothesis (for Hawaii, etc.) Widely Discredited
    - Plate Tectonics: Subduction Doesn't Happen
    - Plate Tectonics: Convection Doesn't Happen
    - Fountains of MAGMA (?) of the Great Deep. Huh?
    - Deep Magma Can't Rise: The Crossover Depth!
    - Catastrophic Plate Tectonics Miracles
    - rsr.org/catastrophic-plate-tectonics
    - rsr.org/hydroplate-theory
    - rsr.org/bryan-nickel
    - Bible verses uniquely supporting various flood models
    - Physical features crying out for explanation.




    * Who Is Ellen McHenry?
    She's the creative genius behing Ellen McHenry's Basement Worshop, textbook author (Rocks & Dirt, The Elements, The Brain, and Mapping the World with Art) and creator of the renowned Brain Hat, used by some of the world's leading museums and science associations. McHenry's textbooks include many major discoveries and a lot of science left out of standard texts because of the questions these raise.

    Also, Ellen's curriculum materials, while usable even in public schools and homeschool coops with diverse members, are not hostile toward the Christian worldview. For more resources, see rsr.org/ellen or go directly to...
    - Hydroplate Theory for Kids page
    - Ellen's No Rain Before the Flood coloring page
    - McHenry's HPT coloring chart
    - BEL's Ellen interview
    - And her famous Brain Hat (above)!



    * Some ITB Resources for Kids:



    * Have You Tried RSR's Multiple Creation Site Search? Our listeners are telling us that this Real Science Radio service, a customized multi-creation-site Google search, is AMAZINGLY effective and a fabulous time saver! And, it's a Google search! Only customized to save you time and make you smarter! Let's say you want to learn about the creationist explanation for the origin of comets to expose the secular model's inability to account for their olivine and other earth-like minerals. By using RSR's Multiple Creation Site Search, powered by Google, you'll be simultaneously searching the four largest and most popular creation sites and our own RSR pages! This tool bypasses the confusion and noise of Wikipedia and the Internet generally and let's you search simultaneously (including countless articles written by friends of Real Science Radio) the websites of Creation Ministries International, Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research, Dr. Walt Brown's creationscience.com site, and our own RSR resources (at kgov.com, 360dayyear.com and youngearth.com). Enjoy!
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us