Sorry for the delay. What I'll do is first go over my general errors, then I'll get into your last reply to my last post then I'll get back in to the Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (CPT) model and what I've learn since the last time I posted.
My error was trying to debate someone on a topic that is essentially brand new to me. Trying to poke holes in my opponent's views with only what I know (or thought I knew) without doing any type of research, or very little research. For the most part I didn't completely read the entire model, I merely skimmed it looking for items I thought I could easily refute. I won't make that mistake again.
One thing I can't stand is when someone tries to refute someone elses arguments by simply copying & pasting text from a website without any real knowledge of what they're posting. I try my hardest not to do that, but at some point you have to realize when you're out of your league on a topic, take a step back and do a little bit of research.
On the surface this model appears as though CPT could have happened and could be the answer that Young Earth Creationalist have been looking for to explain HOW the flood could have occured. The problems arise when you start to dig a little deeper and start asking question (when you know the questions to ask) is when you realize the flaws in the model and how such an even just couldn't have happend, but I'll get into that later.
Now the response to your last response to my last post,
Thanks. The funny thing is, I was actually on his site reading only a portion of the model ("The Physics Behind the Genisis Flood")
jmog wrote:
Non-uniform sea floor points to a more catastrophic breakup than a long drawn out break up.
Please explain, because the model doesn't describe a "catastrophic breakup" of the sea floor, but an accelerated version of how we currently understand Plate Tectonics to work. So the sea floor still moved along the same path it does now, only at a much faster pace.
jmog wrote:
Now, that sounds like poking fun to me.
Then the "please explain to us laymen what happens when you mix sulfuric acid with water".
Again, that was not my intent. In debate I learned that a stronger point can be made if you can get your opponent to point out a flaw in their own argument. That was what I was trying to do. The problem was that my logic was highly flawed and it blew up in my face. If my line of thinking would have been "true", I envisioned the exchange would have gone something like this-
Bigred1995: ...please explain to us layman what happens when you mix sulfuric acid with water!
jmog: Sulfuric acid, when mixed with water causes an exothermic reaction. OMG! That much sulfuric acid being released into the oceans would have created so much heat Noah and everyone on that boat would have been boiled alive!
But I honestly wasn't trying to make fun of you!
jmog wrote:
Also, you "messed" it up again. SO2 doesn't mainly convert to sulfuric acid anywhere, let alone the atmosphere. Trace amounts of SO2 will convert to
sulfuric acid in liquid water, so either in the water on the ground or in rain drops but not in the atmosphere. Like I said, SO2 does not mainly form sulfuric
acid, only trace amounts of it will go to sulfuric acid.
Was I really that far off? First let me clarify, when I said, "in the atmosphere" I was making the distinction between in the volcano and outside of the volcano in the air. So when I said, "just not until SO2 converts in the atmosphere." I was refering to exactly what you mentioned when it mixes with water droplets (rain drops). Either way my intital line of thinking was wrong, that much I can admit!
jmog wrote:
lol, do you even know which way you are going?
One post you say the vast amounts of CO2 would have warmed the planet so much that Noah would have died.
Now you say the vast amounts of volcanic dust would have cooled the Earth so much that Noah would hav died.
Pick one...
I go with cool, but not a dead Noah. I go with cool because most flood believers also believe the ice age was caused from the flood.
You're absolutely correct! My initial line of thinking was on the line of global warming (which is ridiculous since if true, global warming that is, would take decades not days or weeks) plus the effects of the "volcano released H2SO4" (which you pointed out was a major flaw on my part, thanks btw
) into the water, would only add to the already present heat. THEN I remembered the immediate effects of Krakatoa had on the atmosphere and thought with the CPT activity being hundres or maybe even a thousand times greater than Krakatoa then effects Noah would have had to deal would would have been multiplied by that much as well.
That is the probelm trying to debate someone off the top of your head without doing hardly any research or even a minute or two to think things through. BTW, I did pick one and I pick heating up, and Noah & every living thing on the boat cooks.
jmog wrote:
Also, 2%, 8%, either way the amount of that 2 or 8% that turns to sulfuric acid is MINIMAL.
You're absolutely correct; with a nomal volcanic activity, 2%, 8%, it doesn't matter, the amount of toxic fumes released would be minimal. My line of thinking was that CPT was a global event, covering about 70,006 km in total; so with something that much larger in scope would change minimal to critical pretty fast!
But like you said, I wasn't using any real data to back up anything I was saying, I was merely going off what I thought was logical.
jmog wrote:
You are thowing out a ton of YOUR opinions on whether or not Noah could survive with no evidence behind it whatsoever.
Once again, you're correct. Like I said earlier, I was trying to attack this model based on what I thought I knew, I will not make that mistake again.
Now what I've learned...
When I realized I wasn't informed enough to be in this type of debate I decided to go look for individuals that were. Not wanting to just find some random website I decided to do a Google Scholar search of this model in the hopes of finding a peer review paper written on this topic. The problem I ran in to was that I couldn't find any. Well obviously I'm not looking in the right places and there's probably a few sites that just aren't coming up in Google Scholar search, or thats what I was thinking. The best people to direct me to the correct place would be the people that work in the field. So that's when I decided to contact my friend at USGS and she put me in contact with a Geologist.
As soon as I mentioned this model to the geologist he literally laughed out loud; he asked me, "If this is such a solid model that explains how the contenets formed and explains the Biblical Flood, then why has it never been submitted for peer review?" He went on to explain to me how most geologist think of themselves as being "catstrophic" in nature and would give this model the same seriousness as they would any other "theory" (I put theory in quotes because I don't feel this model can be honestly considered a true scientific theory).
So jmog, why hasn't this model been submitted for peer review? If the data is there and its solid data then it should have no problem standing up to any and all scrutiny right?
He then got me in contact with a Geophysist friend of his. When I mentioned the model to him, he pretty much broke it down like this (I'm paraphrasing, btw)...
So, we have this massive super continent, and out of no where it starts violently breaking up, and all of the continents reach their locations we see today, or very close, in a very short period of time. And with all of this catastrophic activity we still end up with 7 - 10 large tectonic plates and not hundreds or possibly thousands of smaller ones you'd expect to see from such activity. And just as quickly as it started it abruptly stops.
So, what started this event?
This question here really illustrated to me that I wasn't qualified to tackle such a topic. When he asked that I immediately asked, "Couldn't a large meteor strike cause this to occur?" and at that moment he busted out laughing (I notice this model has a lot of people laughing, though I admit this last time was probably at me). He agreed that a large enough "impact event" could indeed possibly cause this, but it would have to be huge. The impact event that wiped out the dinosaurs was huge and wasn't lare enough to cause this type of event so if an impact event was the cause, then the last thing Noah and every living creature on that boat had to worry about would be the rising water (actually there'd be no water as it all would eventually be evaporated, soon after the impact).
He gave me a possible YEC answer to this and it deals with how plate tectonics work now.
What energy kept it going? (Remember, this event is moving an enourmous amount of mass which involves enormous friction and constant collisions.)
What stopped it? or Why did it stop?
Screw the heat from the eruptions; with the movement of that much mass, how much heat is generated simply from the movement of that much mass so quickly? (Hint: it's pretty hot!!! He also provided me with rough "lower limit" calculations)
Why do we end up with a few large plates instead of thousands of smaller plates?
I'll end it with those for now.
.
