Plate Tectonics Gets Squishy (Creationist screed)

We are the Borg.
User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 76108
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago

Plate Tectonics Gets Squishy (Creationist screed)

Post by Abdul Alhazred » Sun Jul 11, 2004 3:42 am

http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev0704.htm

[quote]
Two reports on plate tectonics this week make it seem less like “hardâ€
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
Sock
Posts: 794
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 7:35 pm

Post by Sock » Sun Jul 11, 2004 4:17 am

I read it. Not much to it. I'm not a geologist, but all I could think when I read it was, "So?"

What point are they trying to make by pointing out that plate tectonic theory is in flux?
"Sock is funny!" - [url=http://www.pennandteller.com/03/coolstuff/penniphile/sockpage.htm]New York Times[/url]

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 76108
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago

Post by Abdul Alhazred » Sun Jul 11, 2004 4:35 am

Sock wrote: What point are they trying to make by pointing out that plate tectonic theory is in flux?
I reckon it's the usual creationist crapola line about "mere theory".

But I was hoping for some clarification from a geologist about what's really going on in the field WRT this.
Last edited by Abdul Alhazred on Sun Jul 11, 2004 6:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
hammegk
Posts: 15134
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 1:16 pm
Title: Curmudgeon
Location: Hither, sometimes Yon

Post by hammegk » Sun Jul 11, 2004 4:20 pm

SKAIK, it has nothing to do with any creationism concept. The switch from Roots of Mountains in geosynclines to plate tectonics didn't effect anything of religious import.
The most important things in life–beauty, grace, redemption, compassion, loyalty, love–are beyond the reach of reason. Which doesn’t make them any less real. Stay far back: I'm allergic to Stupid.

The simple rule, the greatest plan, that he should keep who has the power, and he should take who can.

The only enemies of guns: rust ... and politicians.

Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

“Jesus loves the little cheeses, all the cheeses of the world. Swiss and Cheddar, stinky, too. If He loved them, so should you. Jesus loves the little cheeses of the world.”

I'm right 98% of the time; who cares about the other 3%?

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 76108
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago

Post by Abdul Alhazred » Sun Jul 11, 2004 6:46 pm

hammegk wrote:SKAIK, it has nothing to do with any creationism concept. The switch from Roots of Mountains in geosynclines to plate tectonics didn't effect anything of religious import.
So you say, but the story is on a creationist website for a reason, even if that reason is based on a delusion.
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
Sock
Posts: 794
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 7:35 pm

Post by Sock » Mon Jul 12, 2004 5:18 am

I guess it could be used to argue that "Science was wrong about 'A', so they are wrong about 'B'".

But it is funny how some people will use the hard work of real scientists to prove other real scientists were wrong and then use that to prove their completely unscientific ideas are right.

I don't know if that is the reason the plate tectonics were brought up in this case, though.
"Sock is funny!" - [url=http://www.pennandteller.com/03/coolstuff/penniphile/sockpage.htm]New York Times[/url]

User avatar
DaveH
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 4:58 am
Location: Under a mountain of REAL work

Post by DaveH » Mon Jul 12, 2004 8:16 am

So some tectonic plates are moving marginally slower than previously thought? 5mm/year versus 30mm/year? Or 0.2in/year versus 1.2in/year? Therefore Plate Tectonics is catastrophically disproven?

Isn't there some "Deluded Nitwit Symphony" we can play for these people?
Nunc Tutus Exitus Computarus