It sure is. :thumb:
Real Science Radio: Plate Tectonics. Not.
- Thread starter Stripe
- Start date
It sure is. :thumb:
If Stripe can't understand it well enough to discuss it here, I'm wondering why he thinks it's worth listening to.
Which is the correct way of fitting the continents together?
http://www.popgive.com/2009/02/animals-assembled-out-of-continents-of.html
http://www.popgive.com/2009/02/animals-assembled-out-of-continents-of.html
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
Is anyone going to actually discuss the evidence, or has the opposition substituted their evidence for mockery and ridicule?
gcthomas
New member
Are you always going to conflate science with atheism? All the major churches here accept continental drift - they'd be surprised to be labelled atheists!
Here is a video of Walt Brown explaining his hydroplate theory:
Here is a critical examination of the hydroplate theory: http://web.archive.org/web/20120204040148/http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/hydro.html
Here is a critical examination of the hydroplate theory: http://web.archive.org/web/20120204040148/http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/hydro.html
gcthomas
New member
They'd rather try to poke holes in a solid theory than expose their own flimsy 'theories' to the light of day.
It is standard Creationist rhetoric: set up a false dichotomy between science and faith by painting science as one big atheist conspiracy; claim that science itself disproves its own conclusions (ha, ha!), then refuse to discuss the specifics of the 'alternatives' while accusing those who laugh at their feeble explanations as ignorant or close minded (you shouldn't be so open-minded that your brain falls out!)
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
Prediction confirmed.
Let us know when you've listened to the show. :up:
:darwinsm:
Another atheist dedicated to continual avoidance of a discussion of the evidence plainly presented.
:loser:
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
I already did. The fact that you can't even discuss it within your understanding I think is pretty indicative of the level of rational and empirical support you have for your 'hydroplate theory' (which isn't a theory in the scientific sense, considering it hasn't undergone the scientific method in the least).
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
The "floating" of crustal plates over a layer of water, and the bursting of water resulting in the great deluge. The mid-Atlantic ridge is claimed to be the site of the rupture.
Are you going to discuss the evidence for these claims, or no?
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
Do you want to know how I know that the hydroplate theory is wrong?
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
I know the hydroplate theory is wrong, because the magnetic reversal strips found along these oceanic ridges effectively refutes it.
But even ignoring the physical evidence for a minute, the hydroplate Theory is logically unsound because what it posits as the composition of the early earth (Crustal plates "floating" on a layer of water, held in position only by rock pillars or tendrils) is not only geologically unstable, there is no way this composition could have occurred naturally, and the only reason for the Christian God to create the earth this way would be for the sole and singular purpose of flooding it thousands of years later, which really strains credulity.
:up:
Here is a video that explains the discovery of magnetic reversal and the plate tectonics theory:
| . | |
According to the video, the Pacific plate is being subducted while the Atlantic plate is expanding without much subduction. Given enough time, the Atlantic Ocean will expand while the Pacific Ocean shrinks.
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
For how many posts now would you guess that we've been trying to get you to discuss your evidence against plate tectonics?
It's all been presented. Feel free to assess them.