Young Earth or Old?

[Avajs]

Let's cut to the chase. I listen to experts, they likely know more about their subject than I do. There is evidence to back up scientific claims, if I am interested enough I can research further. The comments about "taking the work of scientists"---yeah for the most part. I have PhDs and MDs in my immediate family. I have met Nobel prize winners. They don't strike me a people who misrepresent their work.
And if the underlying research finds something new or different--they either accept that or investigate further.

Fine---I'm taking a lot of science on faith if you wish to put it that way---but in every case it is faith based on evidence. I note that for many here who start with the god presupposition, evidence is not necessary.

From a practical standpoint, if my heart is racing for no reason--I'll see a cardiologist. I'll listen to that doctor---why, because they have training and expertise. Do you bring your car to a dentist if the brakes dont work? Do you visit a mechanic for a tooth ache.

Enough of this nonsense, grow up. Have some courage to look at evidence. Many people who post here are frightened of the real world.

 

[7djengo7]

Fine---I'm taking a lot of science on faith

That is, you're taking a lot of what you choose to refer to as "science" on faith.

if you wish to put it that way

Obviously you wish to put it that way, since you did put it that way.

---but in every case it is faith based on evidence.

On what "evidence" is your faith based that what you choose to call "evidence" is evidence?

 

[Avajs]

That is, you're taking a lot of what you choose to refer to as "science" on faith.

Obviously you wish to put it that way, since you did put it that way.

On what "evidence" is your faith based that what you choose to call "evidence" is evidence?

You are adorable

 

[Derf]

Let's cut to the chase. I listen to experts, they likely know more about their subject than I do. There is evidence to back up scientific claims, if I am interested enough I can research further. The comments about "taking the work of scientists"---yeah for the most part. I have PhDs and MDs in my immediate family. I have met Nobel prize winners. They don't strike me a people who misrepresent their work.

All of this applies to us as well. We listen to experts, who likely know more than we do. There is evidence to back up our claims. We actually HAVE researched further. We have access to people that interpret Greek and Hebrew. They don't strike us as people who misrepresent their work.

And if the underlying research finds something new or different--they either accept that or investigate further.

And our underlying evidence never changes, since it was written thousands of years ago, and hasn't needed any update.

Fine---I'm taking a lot of science on faith if you wish to put it that way---but in every case it is faith based on evidence. I note that for many here who start with the god presupposition, evidence is not necessary.

Untrue in the most extreme sense!

From a practical standpoint, if my heart is racing for no reason--I'll see a cardiologist. I'll listen to that doctor---why, because they have training and expertise. Do you bring your car to a dentist if the brakes dont work? Do you visit a mechanic for a tooth ache.

So here's the rub. If you experienced something yourself, and then go ask an expert who was not present (any expert, you pick) to describe what you experienced, how close would they get to your description? Would they be able to describe what you witnessed better than you or worse?

Enough of this nonsense, grow up. Have some courage to look at evidence. Many people who post here are frightened of the real world.

Yes, we all agree. You should look at the evidence we have offered. Evidence from the real world. Evidence that has stood the test of time (the experts have not had to change their minds because the research has found something different to be true.)

 

[7djengo7]

You are adorable

Teeth-gnasher, why can you never refrain from your impulse to react angrily like that? I mean, I understand what it is that angers you about what I wrote; but, man, it's like you are afflicted with a sort of chronic emotional intemperance that pretty much guarantees that you are going to publicly display your anger and pettiness, rather than to try to at least keep it to yourself and create an illusion that you have a modicum of dignity and/or self-awareness.

On what "evidence" is your faith based that what you choose to call "evidence" is evidence?

@Avajs: <NO ANSWER>

 

[Avajs]

All of this applies to us as well. We listen to experts, who likely know more than we do. There is evidence to back up our claims. We actually HAVE researched further. We have access to people that interpret Greek and Hebrew. They don't strike us as people who misrepresent their work.

And our underlying evidence never changes, since it was written thousands of years ago, and hasn't needed any update.

Untrue in the most extreme sense!

So here's the rub. If you experienced something yourself, and then go ask an expert who was not present (any expert, you pick) to describe what you experienced, how close would they get to your description? Would they be able to describe what you witnessed better than you or worse?

Yes, we all agree. You should look at the evidence we have offered. Evidence from the real world. Evidence that has stood the test of time (the experts have not had to change their minds because the research has found something different to be true.)

How many versions of Christianity are there? You claim your evidence hasnt changed but you cannot agree on what the stories mean.

 

[Avajs]

Teeth-gnasher, why can you never refrain from your impulse to react angrily like that? I mean, I understand what it is that angers you about what I wrote; but, man, it's like you are afflicted with a sort of chronic emotional intemperance that pretty much guarantees that you are going to publicly display your anger and pettiness, rather than to try to at least keep it to yourself and create an illusion that you have a modicum of dignity and/or self-awareness.

@Avajs: <NO ANSWER>

Angry, intemperate, pettiness? All that after suggesting you were adorable??

 

[Derf]

How many versions of Christianity are there? You claim your evidence hasnt changed but you cannot agree on what the stories mean.

Versions of Christianity? Just 1. Interpretations of the evidence are sometimes different, but the evidence remains steadfast.

 

[JudgeRightly]

So you can explain how plates of rock that are 10-60 miles thick can "subduct"?

If so, please provide, at a minimum, even a conceptual model for how it would happen?

Do

Was that supposed to be a full response to my request?

Bump for @Avajs in case you missed it.

 

[Avajs]

Bump for @Avajs in case you missed it.

https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/understanding.html. You are welcome. If you have any specific questions you should contact USGS for a better explanation, assuming Donald from Queens has not decimated that organization.

 

[JudgeRightly]

https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/understanding.html. You are welcome. If you have any specific questions you should contact USGS for a better explanation, assuming Donald from Queens has not decimated that organization.

Nothing on that page explains HOW a 10-60 mile thick layer of rock can subduct. It merely assumes that that is what happens, and expects you to just believe it. Don't bring politics into this. This is the science forum on TOL.

Please answer the question yourself, this time, if you cannot find any explanation.

How, even if all you provide is a conceptual model, does a giant plate of rock subduct under another giant plate of rock?

Because as far as I can tell, when two nearly vertical surfaces on the edge of something that's that massive (and I mean that literally, not as a figure of speech), one of them does not suddenly dive down, and the other jump up, in order for subduction to happen, nor does the nearly vertical wall of solid material suddenly become a wedge.

When two such surfaces meet, you would expect buckling and the leading edges of material to be crushed, sure, but not for one plate to suddenly start diving down under the other.

Please explain WHY this is supposed to happen, and not just point me to some article that assumes it happens.

 

[Avajs]

Nothing on that page explains HOW a 10-60 mile thick layer of rock can subduct. It merely assumes that that is what happens, and expects you to just believe it. Don't bring politics into this. This is the science forum on TOL.

Please answer the question yourself, this time, if you cannot find any explanation.

How, even if all you provide is a conceptual model, does a giant plate of rock subduct under another giant plate of rock?

Because as far as I can tell, when two nearly vertical surfaces on the edge of something that's that massive (and I mean that literally, not as a figure of speech), one of them does not suddenly dive down, and the other jump up, in order for subduction to happen, nor does the nearly vertical wall of solid material suddenly become a wedge.

When two such surfaces meet, you would expect buckling and the leading edges of material to be crushed, sure, but not for one plate to suddenly start diving down under the other.

Please explain WHY this is supposed to happen, and not just point me to some article that assumes it happens.

Naah, why dont you do what i suggested and contact USGS or a geologist at your local state University. They are much more knowedgable than I. But I bet you wont because science frightens you and might make you question your beliefs. Have a safe 4th

 

[7djengo7]

Angry, intemperate, pettiness?

Oh, and also, you're a vicious liar, as you show by writing this:

All that after suggesting you were adorable??

You know you weren't suggesting I were adorable, so you are lying through your teeth by saying that you were suggesting that. You know you were using your word, "adorable", in sarcasm, rather than in sincerity. It's not that you're too stupid to understand this, it's just that you're irrationally angry and motivated to lie about it.

 

[Derf]

Naah, why dont you do what i suggested and contact USGS or a geologist at your local state University. They are much more knowedgable than I. But I bet you wont because science frightens you and might make you question your beliefs. Have a safe 4th

Why are you in a science thread if you don't want to talk about science?

 

[Right Divider]

Let's cut to the chase. I listen to experts, they likely know more about their subject than I do.

That does not mean that they are correct about everything that they say.

There is evidence to back up scientific claims, if I am interested enough I can research further. The comments about "taking the work of scientists"---yeah for the most part. I have PhDs and MDs in my immediate family. I have met Nobel prize winners. They don't strike me a people who misrepresent their work.

You don't seem like a good judge of character.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Naah, why don't you do what i suggested and contact USGS or a geologist at your local state University. They are much more knowledgeable than I. But I bet you won't because science frightens you and might make you question your beliefs. Have a safe 4th

Avajs, it's fine to just say, "I don't know how giant plates of rock can subduct." No one will fault you for that

But refusing to answer a direct question, on a forum which you signed up to participate on, just shows you to be dishonest.

You say "I trust the science" but can't back up your beliefs with evidence, or even a general explanation for your beliefs, and instead have to push anyone who challenges you to a third party, typically some large organization who may or may not ever respond, assuming they don't immediately block them as a troll.

It's almost as if you're just a shill for evolution, because it's the cool thing to do, and darn anyone who points out your lack of evidence.

Once again: This is a discussion forum.

Linking to other sites to provide evidence for the things you say is generally fine.

Telling people on the forum to "go ask someone else in some governmental organization" for an answer to a question that YOU are the one being asked, that's not okay.

Again, if you don't know the answer to the question, it's fine to say "I don't know." That's part of doing science. In fact, it's the first step to doing science.

"I don't know what the answer is to this question, so let me try to find out."

Unfortunately, it seems you've given up at the "I don't know" part, and are not willing to try to find out the answer, instead relying on others to answer it for you.

Do better.

So here's my question, meant for you, specifically, and not for someone who is not on this forum: How, even if it's just a broad explanation of a general model, do continental plates "subduct"? Please provide even a basic mechanism for it.

 

[Avajs]

Oh, and also, you're a vicious liar, as you show by writing this:

You know you weren't suggesting I were adorable, so you are lying through your teeth by saying that you were suggesting that. You know you were using your word, "adorable", in sarcasm, rather than in sincerity. It's not that you're too stupid to understand this, it's just that you're irrationally angry and motivated to lie about it.

Nope, you are adorable

 

[Avajs]

Avajs, it's fine to just say, "I don't know how giant plates of rock can subduct." No one will fault you for that

But refusing to answer a direct question, on a forum which you signed up to participate on, just shows you to be dishonest.

You say "I trust the science" but can't back up your beliefs with evidence, or even a general explanation for your beliefs, and instead have to push anyone who challenges you to a third party, typically some large organization who may or may not ever respond, assuming they don't immediately block them as a troll.

It's almost as if you're just a shill for evolution, because it's the cool thing to do, and darn anyone who points out your lack of evidence.

Once again: This is a discussion forum.

Linking to other sites to provide evidence for the things you say is generally fine.

Telling people on the forum to "go ask someone else in some governmental organization" for an answer to a question that YOU are the one being asked, that's not okay.

Again, if you don't know the answer to the question, it's fine to say "I don't know." That's part of doing science. In fact, it's the first step to doing science.

"I don't know what the answer is to this question, so let me try to find out."

Unfortunately, it seems you've given up at the "I don't know" part, and are not willing to try to find out the answer, instead relying on others to answer it for you.

Do better.

So here's my question, meant for you, specifically, and not for someone who is not on this forum: How, even if it's just a broad explanation of a general model, do continental plates "subduct"? Please provide even a basic mechanism for it.

I provided a reference to the USGS site. Other than that man up and investigate yourself.

The USGS site provides information. Yep, I dont know is part of science. You admit you dont know but have no desire to really find out because it may (will) interfere with your religion. Simple really.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I provided a reference to the USGS site.

The site you linked to did not answer the question I asked you to answer.

Which you still have not answered, arguably because you cannot, because it's not physically possible for plates to subduct.

Other than that man up and investigate yourself.

You're on a discussion forum, refusing to discuss.... And telling me to "man up"?

Me asking you IS investigating.

The USGS site provides information.

But not the information I asked you, specifically, for.

Yep, I dont know is part of science.

But you'll never utter the words yourself when pressed. You'll always deflect to someone else, to try and save face.

It's extremely telling that you still refuse to even attempt to answer my question.

You admit you dont know but have no desire to really find out because it may (will) interfere with your religion. Simple really.

It has nothing to do with religion.

I know that it is physically impossible for plates of rock that are tens of miles thick to suddenly dive under each other.

That's a matter of physics.

But if fairy-tale physics is your religion, like with plate subduction, then it explains why you're so averse to answering a simple question about your beliefs, because it actually will interfere with your religion.

And all you can do is project your aversion onto others, like you're doing here.

I'm confident in my beliefs, and have no problems answering, and am even eager to answer, questions about what I believe.

I've found, however, even as a general rule of thumb, that those who are not confident in their beliefs, tend to avoid questions that undermine their beliefs, because answering them would expose how fragile their beliefs truly are, as they're not based in reality, but upon a poorly built worldview.

 

[7djengo7]

Nope, you are adorable

What man says that sincerely to another man? Either you are being sarcastic or you are effeminate.