Any geologists in the house?

[Rahvin]

I'm engaged in a debate on another forum, and the subject of catastrophic plate tectonics has been brought up. CPT, as you all likely know from other fundies, claims that the movement of the tectonic plates that we see (including the creation of the world's mountains, and sometimes even the seperation of the continents) was all done during the year-long Flood in a single cataclysmic event.

I'd really like to be able to do some math and predict the actual effects such rapid movement of tectonic plates would have on the planet, but I honestly don't know how I should calculate this. Does anyone have any idea how to get a mathematical estimate of the energies involved, and what the effects would be on the planet?

[Edi]

First off, read the goddamn main site (http:/www.creationtheory.org for the creationism vs science issue), this is addressed there, at least in the old version of the pages.

Second, if you can't goddamn well pull your own weight in debates on other boards, then STAY THE FUCK OUT OF THEM! Or at least bother to do your own research first before running here screaming for help. Did you by any chance happen to see that big announcement on top of the SLAM forum that specifically says "Do not drag debates on other boards here, we are generally not fucking impressed with attempts to make yourself look good by going elsewhere to debate idiots"? It's especially true when you fail.

Some people who are long-time members and have a track record of taking part in that issue in a substantial form (e.g. Durandal, who has done more than his share with his website etc) obviously have a lot more leeway, and Magnetic is something of a special case due to the way he arrived here, his personal situation and his quest to find out what and how to adjust to his change in world view.

But this thread like a lot of others ny some posters here is just pure "Look at me! I r teh smart, meesa debatorz t3H fund13z!!!1! Meesa- *falls flat on face* Oopsie!" bloody spam.

To answer your question, yes, there is a geologist in the house, and he might very well answer you, if he manages before one of the mods gets irritated at this thread and oppresses it.

Don't take this ranting personally, it isn't aimed just at you, but at this phenomenon generally, but I hope you take it to heart. There are other far better ways to contribute to this community than trying the route of Me-Too and Sycophant (posting threads like this, or worse, threads showcasing adventures on other boards, is often seen as sycophantic behavior here, especially from new members, even if it is honestly not meant as such).

Edi

[Zero]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

That has some interesting other reasons that a global flood doesn't really work.

http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/plate2.htm

That is probably closer to what you're looking for.

Sorry that that's the best I can google.

[Rahvin]

Thanks Zero.

I have seen the talkorigins site ant their specific articles on the Flood and even CPT. They just don't go into as much detail as I was hoping for.

That second link seems to have what I need, or at least close enough.

[Rahvin]

First off, read the goddamn main site (http:/www.creationtheory.org for the creationism vs science issue), this is addressed there, at least in the old version of the pages.

I did. Mike's page is excellent, but he didn't address quite what I was looking for. He talks about the fact that Creationists don't propose a source for the energy, or how the Ark was supposed to survive such upheaval, but he didn't discuss the actual amounts of energy required to move the tectonic plates or the effects it would have. In short, he disproved CPT, but from an entirely different angle. I already know the points he mentioned, both through reading his site and others, but I wanted a more mathematical "this is what would happen if you were right, and we don't see any evidence of it" kind of approach.

Second, if you can't goddamn well pull your own weight in debates on other boards, then STAY THE FUCK OUT OF THEM! Or at least bother to do your own research first before running here screaming for help. Did you by any chance happen to see that big announcement on top of the SLAM forum that specifically says "Do not drag debates on other boards here, we are generally not fucking impressed with attempts to make yourself look good by going elsewhere to debate idiots"? It's especially true when you fail.

I can debate just fine in those discussions I am knowledgeable enough to participate in. I did a decent amount of googling and found the info Zero mentioned in his first link, along with similar info elsewhere, but I was unable to find anything along the lines of what I was searching for. I'm not trying to impress anybody, here or elsewhere - this board just has some really fucking smart people, many of whom debate this sort of thing often. I don't know any other sites that regularly discuss global-killer events, complete with energy calculation like people do here.

If asking for information to help with a debate elsewhere is a violation of the rules, then I apologize, and I won't post anything similar again.

But this thread like a lot of others ny some posters here is just pure "Look at me! I r teh smart, meesa debatorz t3H fund13z!!!1! Meesa- *falls flat on face* Oopsie!" bloody spam.

Doesn't even approach my intent. I'm not looking for an ego-boost here. I'm flat out admitting that I can't find some information I would like to use. How does my post constitute some sort of ego-inflating self-wank? I was just looking for additional info that I was not able to find on my own. And again, I won't do so again if it's against the rules.

Don't take this ranting personally, it isn't aimed just at you, but at this phenomenon generally, but I hope you take it to heart. There are other far better ways to contribute to this community than trying the route of Me-Too and Sycophant (posting threads like this, or worse, threads showcasing adventures on other boards, is often seen as sycophantic behavior here, especially from new members, even if it is honestly not meant as such).

It's definitely not meant as such. I'm not trying to fellate my own ego, or gain any sort of standing here for being able to debate a goddam fundy on another board. Anybody can do that. I was just asking for help with some specific info that I haven't been able to find on my own.

[Edi]

Okay. Sorry about unloading on you like that. I was somewhat cranky yesterday evening and took your thread to be just part of an unfortunately too common fad here and got irritated. Glad to see that I was wrong. If you're as well informed and articulated on other subjects, I look forward to seeing more posts from you.

Edi

[CaptainChewbacca]

I'm engaged in a debate on another forum, and the subject of catastrophic plate tectonics has been brought up. CPT, as you all likely know from other fundies, claims that the movement of the tectonic plates that we see (including the creation of the world's mountains, and sometimes even the seperation of the continents) was all done during the year-long Flood in a single cataclysmic event.

I'd really like to be able to do some math and predict the actual effects such rapid movement of tectonic plates would have on the planet, but I honestly don't know how I should calculate this. Does anyone have any idea how to get a mathematical estimate of the energies involved, and what the effects would be on the planet?

Your calculations wouldn't matter, since the theory purports that the plates and crust were more plastic than they are now, and that supposed plasticity is an unknown quantity. Fossil ages in the mountains should clarify age of construction at different levels. If they don't believe in fossils, nothing else you do will matter.

P.S. I'm the geologist. If you have more specific questions, go right ahead.

[Rahvin]

Your calculations wouldn't matter, since the theory purports that the plates and crust were more plastic than they are now, and that supposed plasticity is an unknown quantity. Fossil ages in the mountains should clarify age of construction at different levels. If they don't believe in fossils, nothing else you do will matter.

Hrm. I hadn't heard of the "Additional plasticity" argument before. That's some pretty hefty moving of the goalposts. The place I post has decent requirements for evidence and support of claims - I don't think miraculous plasticity of the Earth's crust will be much of a problem without a mechanism to cause it and then remove it.

In any case, what I'm really after is some way to do a (relatively) simple energy calculation for moving the continents around from the Pangea supercontinent into their present positions in a single year. Is there any way to get a (very) rough estimate of the energies involved without specialized modeling software?

I can get the masses involved, and come up with estimated average distance of travel (like I said, I only want a really simple rough estimate, not model the entirety of the continental shift), but since I'm not dealing with a simple kinetic energy situation, I'm not sure how to factor in friction and so forth from the plates rubbing and colliding.

Any chance you could point me in the right direction?

Any help is appreciated - just a link to where I can find such info is fine. I certainly don't mind doing my own legwork.

[Magnetic]

Rahvin, I've been in those debates before and they would just chalk it up to "God can make it happen anyway He can because He's God and is all powerful."

It all comes down to the fact that they can't account for the amount of water it would take to cover the mountains so they say that the topography of the world was much different in those day, . . . much flatter, so in Genesis 7:20 when it says that "15 cubits upwards did the waters prevail", it wouldn't require the enormous amount of water necessary to cover the mountains because of the flatter topography. Now, what pretty much ended that conversation (at least no one posted anymore) was when I stated that there in fact WERE mountains, because in that same verse it said, ". . . and the mountains were covered." It would make no sense to say that mountains were covered when they weren't there originally.

Debates like this seem to go nowhere. In my search for what can only be truth, I found questions such as 'how these animals got to the ark', what they ate on the ark, what they ate after the ark landed, how they got back to their native homelands, and how they ate on that journey, and how omnivores managed to survive while waiting for prey animals to produce a viably sufficient offspring to be preyed upon, etc. . . . those are much more important than the fundi "explaination" for waters covering 15 cubits over the mountains, and the some 5 time more water than is currently on this earth it would have taken.

BTW, Edi, thanks for your kind words and patience. These past few months have been quite enlightening.

[Rahvin]

Rahvin, I've been in those debates before and they would just chalk it up to "God can make it happen anyway He can because He's God and is all powerful."

I know exactly what you mean. But on the board I participate in, those who refuse to back up claims with evidence, and resort to "Goddidit," tend to get banned from the Science portion of the forum.

Those who remain to debate with are typically slightly more open-minded, but have been brainwashed with religious rhetoric and dogma their entire lives. They are willing to critically examine the Creationis explanations if you simply refute them.

It all comes down to the fact that they can't account for the amount of water it would take to cover the mountains so they say that the topography of the world was much different in those day, . . . much flatter, so in Genesis 7:20 when it says that "15 cubits upwards did the waters prevail", it wouldn't require the enormous amount of water necessary to cover the mountains because of the flatter topography. Now, what pretty much ended that conversation (at least no one posted anymore) was when I stated that there in fact WERE mountains, because in that same verse it said, ". . . and the mountains were covered." It would make no sense to say that mountains were covered when they weren't there originally.

Oh, trust me - I've had those debates, too. The Flood is one of the most common topics, simply becuase it's one of the more obvious and easy to refute stories in the Bible. I just wanted to attack catastrophic plate tectonics itself, disregarding the rest of the Flood, and I wanted to use some math to back me up. I want to be able to say "what you propose would require something along the order of x amount of energy. Where did this energy come from, and why are the plates not moving so quickly today?" I'd also like to be able to show "the effects of such rapid plate movement would be a, b, and c. Why don't we see them?" For these arguments I need to get a rough estimate of the energies involved, and do some reading on geophysics and plate tectonics in particular. The last part I can handle, but after searching I just haven't found a method to get that energy estimate.

I can, of course, use the evidence provided by Mike on his site, as well as talkorigins and others, but I wanted to add a little more.

That, and I'm just curious myself. I know the energy should be huge - but I can't substantiate that very well beyond very simple calculations that don't take into account friction and so forth.

Debates like this seem to go nowhere. In my search for what can only be truth, I found questions such as 'how these animals got to the ark', what they ate on the ark, what they ate after the ark landed, how they got back to their native homelands, and how they ate on that journey, and how omnivores managed to survive while waiting for prey animals to produce a viably sufficient offspring to be preyed upon, etc. . . . those are much more important than the fundi "explaination" for waters covering 15 cubits over the mountains, and the some 5 time more water than is currently on this earth it would have taken.

I know. Most fundies don't listen no matter what you say, and they are hopeless - but others are more like you were in that they are willing to critically examine their beliefs and see if they really make sense.

As for the more convincing arguments - those aspects of the Flood have been approached by myself and others. I'm sure they'll come up again. But I wanted to discuss CPT by itself, as certain fundies on the other site have brought it up. The math I want in this instance is unnecessary, but desired to form a more complete argument.

[Magnetic]

Good luck in your search, and in your debate. I hope that someone on here either knows how to address it, or can point you in the right direction.

[Edi]

I'll echo Magnetic in wishing you good luck, and once more my apologies for acting like an idiot toward you, Rahvin. You most assuredly did not deserve what I said.

Edi

[Rahvin]

I'll echo Magnetic in wishing you good luck, and once more my apologies for acting like an idiot toward you, Rahvin. You most assuredly did not deserve what I said.

Apology accepted. No hard feelings.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Getting exact calcs are hard because you'd have to know the approximate mass of Pangea at the time it existed. As for movement, there was alot of rotation/translation of continental masses which could greatly increase your energy requirements depending on whose model of plate movement you used.

[Rahvin]

Getting exact calcs are hard because you'd have to know the approximate mass of Pangea at the time it existed. As for movement, there was alot of rotation/translation of continental masses which could greatly increase your energy requirements depending on whose model of plate movement you used.

Well, I'm not really going for exact calculations. All I need is enough to get an estimate for a lower limit. If the estimated lower limit is as abscenely high as I think it would be, that should be all I need in a debate environment.

Is there a website you know of that has this kind of information?

[CaptainChewbacca]

Getting exact calcs are hard because you'd have to know the approximate mass of Pangea at the time it existed. As for movement, there was alot of rotation/translation of continental masses which could greatly increase your energy requirements depending on whose model of plate movement you used.

Well, I'm not really going for exact calculations. All I need is enough to get an estimate for a lower limit. If the estimated lower limit is as abscenely high as I think it would be, that should be all I need in a debate environment.

Is there a website you know of that has this kind of information?

Not off the top of my head. We generally only look at energy along a fault either building or releasing in an earthquake. The kind of information you want, total energy over billions of years, honestly doesn't have any importance in tectonics.

I'm sorry, but I don't have that kind of info. If you want a ballpark, assume an average continental thickness of about 20 miles and calculate it at the density of half sandstone and half granite. Then add an extra 70 miles of distance at 10 miles thickness all around the coast for continental shelf. That should get you an extremely rough mass estimate.

[Rahvin]

Not off the top of my head. We generally only look at energy along a fault either building or releasing in an earthquake. The kind of information you want, total energy over billions of years, honestly doesn't have any importance in tectonics.

I'm sorry, but I don't have that kind of info. If you want a ballpark, assume an average continental thickness of about 20 miles and calculate it at the density of half sandstone and half granite. Then add an extra 70 miles of distance at 10 miles thickness all around the coast for continental shelf. That should get you an extremely rough mass estimate.

Is there any way to simplistically model the force needed to overcome friction for the plates? Even once I calculate a mass, I still need to know what force of friction and collision the plates need to overcome to get a realistic energy estimate.

I understand that this really isn't often considered in geology - thanks for your help so far though.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Not off the top of my head. We generally only look at energy along a fault either building or releasing in an earthquake. The kind of information you want, total energy over billions of years, honestly doesn't have any importance in tectonics.

I'm sorry, but I don't have that kind of info. If you want a ballpark, assume an average continental thickness of about 20 miles and calculate it at the density of half sandstone and half granite. Then add an extra 70 miles of distance at 10 miles thickness all around the coast for continental shelf. That should get you an extremely rough mass estimate.

Is there any way to simplistically model the force needed to overcome friction for the plates? Even once I calculate a mass, I still need to know what force of friction and collision the plates need to overcome to get a realistic energy estimate.

I understand that this really isn't often considered in geology - thanks for your help so far though.

That's going to be your big problem. Friction between plates varies widely along vaults and between plates. It gets even crazier when you have collisions like India into Asia. There's no "book of values" for that, I'm afraid.

[Rahvin]

Oh well. I suppose a simplistic calculation is out if I expect it to have any accuracy at all.

This is likely to sound silly, but if I were to simply take the mass and the coefficient of friction for, say, granite, along with an estimated average travel distance and a time period of one year, do you think I could come up with a useable lower limit?

I know this would be rediculously inaccurate (I know friction behaves differently under such extreme pressures, and it doesn't take into account colliding with other plates, and it deals only with a simple distance, not rotation, etc.), but if it would be grossly inaccurate on the low side, it could still be used as long as I note all of those fact.

What's your opinion? Should I bother, or should I just stick with the same old arguments against CPT?

[CaptainChewbacca]

Oh well. I suppose a simplistic calculation is out if I expect it to have any accuracy at all.

This is likely to sound silly, but if I were to simply take the mass and the coefficient of friction for, say, granite, along with an estimated average travel distance and a time period of one year, do you think I could come up with a useable lower limit?

I know this would be rediculously inaccurate (I know friction behaves differently under such extreme pressures, and it doesn't take into account colliding with other plates, and it deals only with a simple distance, not rotation, etc.), but if it would be grossly inaccurate on the low side, it could still be used as long as I note all of those fact.

What's your opinion? Should I bother, or should I just stick with the same old arguments against CPT?

If you can't get good numbers, don't expand your argument. I mean, what is the granite rubbing against? More granite? Basalt? Is there fluid along the colision zones? What's the rate of deformation?

We have enough time figuring this out for EXISTING faults, there's no way we could approach accuracy for what you want.

[Rahvin]

If you can't get good numbers, don't expand your argument. I mean, what is the granite rubbing against? More granite? Basalt? Is there fluid along the colision zones? What's the rate of deformation?

We have enough time figuring this out for EXISTING faults, there's no way we could approach accuracy for what you want.

Alright. It looks like what I'm asking for is just too complicated to get a simplistic estimate, and since it's not the sort of thing a geologist would bother with, I'm not going to find it gift-wrapped in a Google search either, no matter how much longer I look.

I suppose I'll stick with the existing arguments against CPT - they are certainly enough to disprove the idea. You're right - I'm not going to get the kind of accuracy I would need to make a good argument.

Thanks for your help, though. I appreciate it.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Chances are, if your answer is somewhere out in the internet, you wouldn't recognize it even if you found it

Hell, I don't know if I would recognize it if I found it. Tectonics guys are fucking nuts, I can't handle the math they do.