Sunday, June 06, 2010

Creationism or Evolution - Which Theory Is Actually More Scientific?


(plantation negros have a hard time processing ideas unless you associate the concepts with images of white folks)

Catastrophic Plate Tectonics


Catastrophic plate tectonics is a theory that proposes rapid movement of the Earth's plates during the flood of Noah. It was originally derived by Dr. John Baumgardner, and substantiated by sophisticated computer modeling.

Many creation geologists feel it fits with standard geology better than other flood models because it offers a scientific description of the flood of Noah that is compatible with plate tectonics and continental drift theories. It also provides a mechanism for the source and recession of the flood water (i.e. the fountains of the great deep), and accepts the conventional interpretation of events like earthquakes and volcanic activity. Because it simply requires an accelerated timescale for plate movement, the conflict with traditional uniformitarian geology is also minimal.

Baumgardner's model is illustrated in the 27 minute documentary titled: In the Beginning: Catastrophic Plate Tectonics and the Genesis Flood, which was produced in 1996 by Keziah and American Portrait Films.

2 comments:

HotmfWax said...

Hold up DV,


The Logical Fallacies of Plate Tectonics

"Despite what's said about the objectivity of science the reality is quite otherwise. This is never more clearly illustrated than when a new idea comes along. For usually the difficult thing is not taking it on board (its logic is often compelling) but giving up the old beliefs that have become entrenched.

What's more, the balance usually revolves around something extremely self-evident and simple. So self-evident and simple in fact that in retrospect once the change is made it is almost inconceivable how things could have been seen otherwise.

For example in their day concepts such as Flat Earth, Geocentric System and an Earth encapsuled in an inverted bowl-like firmament of stars were the products of the keenest minds, the cutting edge of contemporary thought. Today these ideas are seen as childishly naive and ludicrous, not just by scientists cognitive of facts but also by an uninformed general public. There is a quality of proportion ('ratio'), ...rationality, which demands to be considered, and whose analysis is even within the grasp of a child, given the accepted mores and beliefs of the time - axioms which weave a complex of permissions and restrictions on the rational mind.


And so it is with Plate Tectonics in which it is posited that the surface deformation of the planet is driven by what is tantamount to its internal indigestion - connvection cells.

The unwarranted presumptions on which Plate Tectonics is based and the many conundrums and contradictions which derive from these render the whole concept of Plate Tectonics ever less tenable, particularly when nowhere in the consensus position is there taken into account the most marked structural configuration of the planet - its spin symmetry: the Earth's spin has no place in the grand design of Plate Tectonics. "

Read more.....

Click here

From any rational viewpoint the Earth's spin is obviously implicated - In terms of geological time the Earth is spinning like a top, and has an oblate first-order shape that reflects it. Of course spin is implicated. It is staring us in the face in the first-order oblateness of the planet! Rationally we would expect nothing less. Why then are the smaller scale geological expressions of it, which are similarly obvious once seen, not similarly regarded? Unfortunately the answer to that one has nothing to do with the veracity of the geological facts or logic, but has everything to do with science as a profession and the priority for hypothetical models over observable fact.

The structures that describe spin are the same structures that describe enlargement; the two are hand-in-glove expressions of the same dynamical behaviour; if we accept the inscription of spin on global geological structure, then the dynamics of enlargement follow axiomatically regardless of any 'final causal explanation' of the relationship. They are, .. empirically, genetically, and logically - tied.

The Earth is Growing?

HotmfWax said...

There is no subduction!!!!

The Moors might have been on to something.

:)

Click here