Jump to content


Photo

Subduction Theory Laid To Rest?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
20 replies to this topic

#1 Christopher_John

Christopher_John

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • Interests:Messianic Prophecy.<br /><br /> I work very odd hours, I will eventually get back into the discussion with you, just be patient I'm not avoiding any topic.
  • Age: 41
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Montreal, Canada

Posted 17 March 2006 - 04:37 PM

Sorry I posted this in the miscelleneous forum already but for some reason thought I was here...anyways check out the link and watch the video clips, this gentleman has one of the best theories of tectonics I have ever heard of and by far seems to be the most plausible theory yet.

http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html

#2 Christopher_John

Christopher_John

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • Interests:Messianic Prophecy.<br /><br /> I work very odd hours, I will eventually get back into the discussion with you, just be patient I'm not avoiding any topic.
  • Age: 41
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Montreal, Canada

Posted 17 March 2006 - 05:41 PM

How Mountains Are Made

Earth Project

Mars Tectonics

Saturn Science Stuff

#3 Christopher_John

Christopher_John

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • Interests:Messianic Prophecy.<br /><br /> I work very odd hours, I will eventually get back into the discussion with you, just be patient I'm not avoiding any topic.
  • Age: 41
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Montreal, Canada

Posted 17 March 2006 - 05:49 PM

Genesis 1:9:

9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.


Pre-Flood Waters

Genesis 7:

11In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened


17And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.

18And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.

19And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

20Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

21And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

22All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.


Genesis 10:

25And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.



#4 Christopher_John

Christopher_John

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • Interests:Messianic Prophecy.<br /><br /> I work very odd hours, I will eventually get back into the discussion with you, just be patient I'm not avoiding any topic.
  • Age: 41
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Montreal, Canada

Posted 18 March 2006 - 01:01 PM

As I do find this theory quite probable once again I have to establish that even the best theories contain errors.

When analyzing video #0, (Click Here) the narrator, who is Neal Adams himself (Yes the same guy who does the Batman comics) has put together a great set of animations which makes for some great evidence of how the continents shift without the subduction of layers.

The problem yet again is the proposed time line of millions of years. The author himself demonstrates in animation that Antartica used to be in a tropical zone then became subtropical due to shifting and stretching of the tectonics due to the growth of the earth.

The problem is tropical vegetation has been found fossilized in Antartica which with everything being normal the vegetation should just have decomposed normally due the the immense amount of time it would have taken for antartica to shift into the south pole.

Antartica having a history of a warmer past based on fossilized vegetation found under ice, some of which were also only frozen and not fossilized only further makes one pursue the question, how long are scientists going to ignore the catastrophe denominator?

If Antartica had shifted slowly over millions of years into the south pole then theoretically, with change over time, the vegetation should have adapted accordingly and eventually ended up as tundra yet they have found fossilized palm leaves in the south poles and the whole wooly mammoth issue in northern Siberia in the upper tectonic plates is evidence of a rapid or sudden shift in plate movement, yet again it begs the question, why do they keep excluding the catastrophe scenario?

Neal Adams model of continetal shift not only on earth but also on Ganymede, Mars and even our own moon, clearly shows that the theory is a much more plausible theory than present continental drift via the subducting of layers.

I am greatful that finally someone has made a model that makes perfect sense but yet even he admits that the ocean basins are not more than 180 million years old, this is a far cry from the estimated 4.6 billion year age of the earth at present and ultimately he claims that the scientific community are in agreement that the ocean floors are no older than 180 million years.

This for myself, just re-enforces that the scientific community has bungled their age modeling of the earth and continue to believe that all things have remained the same since the bigining.

2Peter 3:4

And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.


This in itself is preposterous because they will accept catastrophic events such as giant metors crashing into earth wiping out the dinosaur but yet they can't fathom the idea of a sudden event causing the seperating of the continents?

Not knowing what the core of the earth is made of and also not knowing the source of how water ended up on earth or how it was made leaves scientists to make yet again another major error in assuming that the volumes of water that we have, have been the same since the earth was formed this is a completely ludicrous assumption and completely ignorant.

If we don't know what powers the core of the earth then we cannot very well establish exactly how the water got here and no I don't believe that it came from a comet crashing down on earth.

If I can put anything into perspective over the past couple of years, evidence clearly points out regardless of the arguments for old age earth VS YEC and or even Evolution...Mankind and his Science of Origins are severely flawed...tremendously flawed.

In the smaller Earth model you can hypothesize the reason that the dinosaur died off much easier due to the change in gravity, there necks would have snapped in two because of the increase in gravitational force, not to mention they would have died from oxygen starvation after the sudden volume increase in atmosphere (At least the larger dinos would have). An increase from a smaller planet to a larger planet would increase volume, decrease atmospheric pressure, decrease the levels of oxygen due to the change in surface area which is now greatly covered by water instead of land which previously had a greater ratio of land surface area to water surface area giving rise to higher O2 levels in the atmosphere.

How and where this water would have come from is beyond the scope of understanding of our present science community....that is the only factor but because it limits their intelligence and or knowledge, it's an area of taboo to which they ridicule those who attempt to theorize events that don't conform to present thinking.

If the planet was smaller, then also it's orbit around the sun would have been closer creating a uniform global temperature an increase in mass and volume would alter the earth orbital position as well as axial tilt...there's a number of cause and effect relationships which this theory can answer because the evidence presents itself...someone just has to tap our scientists on the shoulder and tell them..."Hey dude...your really not as smart as you think you are..."

Genesis 10:25 has been a subject of debate before also because of it's nature concerning the time of Peleg.

25And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

Many people try to argue that this was how the nations were divided, I disagree. Reading the story of the Tower of Babel is where mankind was split into nations. If the Bible says in the time of Peleg the "Earth" was divided then it was the Earth and not the nations because in the story of the Tower of Babel it clearly says Nations.

If in Genesis 1:9 God says:

9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

Then I am inclined to believe that all the waters were gathered into one place, I can't explain how but at this point present scientific thinking can't even explain how the continents shifted let alone where water came from so again I am inclined to believe the Bible to be factual in that the water was gathered altogether into one place...I can't explain it but this video sure gives me an idea, yes some "scientist" will call it preposterous but hey, if they can't tell me where water came from then don't tell me where it can go !

Click Here for Video

What the world needs are more great thinkers like Neal Adams, not a bunch of wannabe's who want their photo on next months issue of The American Journal of Science.

Peace
CJ

#5 Christopher_John

Christopher_John

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • Interests:Messianic Prophecy.<br /><br /> I work very odd hours, I will eventually get back into the discussion with you, just be patient I'm not avoiding any topic.
  • Age: 41
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Montreal, Canada

Posted 18 March 2006 - 02:44 PM

This is probably the best proof of Mars not having had water in the past which I have also long argued that there has never been nor will they ever find any other existence of life other than on Earth.

Mars Video (Best One)

CJ

#6 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 19 March 2006 - 02:06 PM

Christopher_John
Quite a lot to read (also I cant download video), but before I do a question. Is it your understanding that the author of this web site’s core premise is:

This article does not lay it all out but I will. Earth's surface... they properly say, rifts and spreads and THEY, the scientists of Earth have not faced the simple fact that the Earth is growing!...that will all change, now...!

My bold.

I find this to be a rather silly statement, (I doubt it is Biblically sound also), so I would rather not wast time on this until I read a summery of the theory written in your own words.

#7 Christopher_John

Christopher_John

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • Interests:Messianic Prophecy.<br /><br /> I work very odd hours, I will eventually get back into the discussion with you, just be patient I'm not avoiding any topic.
  • Age: 41
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Montreal, Canada

Posted 20 March 2006 - 03:18 AM

Christopher_John
Quite a lot to read (also I cant download video), but before I do a question.  Is it your understanding that the author of this web site’s core premise is:  My bold.

I find this to be a rather silly statement, (I doubt it is Biblically sound also), so I would rather not wast time on this until I read a summery of the theory written in your own words.

View Post



Yes Chance exactly, not only does he say the earth is growing he provides excellent resources for evidence amongst planets and moons that are growing also, for myself, I would call it irrefutable evidence, he has clearly demonstrated that the subduction theory does not happen, this in itself must give rise to a completely different scenario for tectonic plate movement and he provides a no nonsense logical explanation that is so simple its ridiculous.

The idea originally came from an Australian back in the fifties and as usual he was shunned by his peers and spent most of his life trying to regain his reputation. I'm not sure of the spelling of his name but it was or is Samual Kerry.

My guess is you don't have quick time installed and thats why you can't see the videos, and they are in quick time.

I would suggest installing it ( Quicktime ) and at least viewing this video ( Video ) as he particularly asks people to have their Proffessors view the footage he puts together from NASA, even NASA cannot refute his theory because he is using there own footage to provide evidence for his theory and therefore it would be easily spotted as doctored or faked if it weren't at all true.

If the planet increased in mass then as it decreases in past history, all the continents pull back together, forming one giant land mass where all the tectonic plates come together spherically over the globe.

We look at the map of the world and assume that Pangae once existed and that all the continents fit together like a puzzle. The problem is we never really get a chance to piece the pacific, north and south poles together because the gap between Australia, South East Asia and North America are too far apart to visualize, Neals 3 dimensional animations brings this into focus.

When we remove the oceans and decrease the planet volumetrically the land masses form perfectly spherically exactly the same way we see other planets right now that don't have oceans.

Pangae wasn't one giant land mass in the middle of the Earth's ocean, the earths oceans were pretty much non-existent and all the land fit together spherically similar to the shell of an egg and as it expanded (rifted and shifted) the continents seperated as the mass of the earth increased, the seperations eventually became the oceans and or simultaneously but regardless of how I can explain it, Neal Adams can do a much better job with his presentations than I could ever do it justice.

As far as fitting it Biblically...well let's say that's my perogative to admire Gods creation and fit it to my belief system as opposed to constantly trying to convince oneself that God doesn't exist.

They also had an article on prehistoric insects in the New York Times that supports his theory.

New York Times Article Supports Neal's Theory

Either way, I believe his model will probably become the next scientifically accepted theory for tectonic movement caused by an increasing size in the earth.

So you can read about it now or in a few years makes no difference...it is the real deal and I really hope you take the time to check it out, it is absolutely fascinating and he is by far an evolutionist.


Peace
CJ

#8 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 20 March 2006 - 01:37 PM

So you can read about it now or in a few years makes no difference...it is the real deal and I really hope you take the time to check it out, it is absolutely fascinating and he is by far an evolutionist.
Peace
CJ

View Post


A couple of problems/questions:

What is the proposed mechanism for increasing the planetary mass? You just can’t make mass appear out of thin air!

Is the only evidence continental fit? I.e. the shape fit together when the diameter is reduced?

Assume the increase in mass is real, what would be the effect?

a. the orbit will change, for the earth that will be rather disastrous, because it means that it must have occupied an orbit further out in the past.
b. Likewise for the moon. If the process is going on today we should see the moon spiralling in, but it’s not it is actually moving away form the earth. (Assumption -proportional rates of expansion for planetary diameter).

If the planet increased in mass then as it decreases in past history, all the continents pull back together, forming one giant land mass where all the tectonic plates come together spherically over the globe.

Where does the water go?, it should produce a “water world”

They also had an article on prehistoric insects in the New York Times that supports his theory.

New York Times Article Supports Neal's Theory

, er no they didn’t that link is to a Neil Adams web site, he has pasted an article about giant insects (which does not mention his increasing earth diameter at all)

No matter, have a look at this link Who is Neil Adams


Extracts -

He's the man who brought together Green Lantern and Green Arrow
1959 - 1967 - Adams was published by Archie Comics
Nov 1967 - STRANGE ADVENTURES #206 sees Adams on one of DC's oddest characters – Deadman.
May 1969 - Adams was widely recognised as the most innovative artist in comics

Adams still owns Continuity Associates, which continues to produce animatics and storyboards. Adams contributed the cover to the Millennium edition of ESPN Magazine and a two-page pin up to the Marvel 9/11 charity book HEROES. He also designed the TERMINATOR 2 ride at Universal Studios.

His latest project is A CONVERSATION BETWEEN TWO GUYS IN A BAR, OR A NEW MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE, a 125-page comic about theoretical physics. The basic premise seems to be that the Earth is steadily increasing in mass and volume, that matter is infinite and that there is a previously undiscovered particle that he calls "dark matter". His theories were subject to a long article in the March 2001 issue of Wired Magazine and the article, which is available online, makes for interesting reading. At the time of the interview, the arrival of the book is imminent.

My bold.

You have been reading fiction.

#9 Christopher_John

Christopher_John

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • Interests:Messianic Prophecy.<br /><br /> I work very odd hours, I will eventually get back into the discussion with you, just be patient I'm not avoiding any topic.
  • Age: 41
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Montreal, Canada

Posted 25 March 2006 - 06:51 AM

A couple of problems/questions:

What is the proposed mechanism for increasing the planetary mass?  You just can’t make mass appear out of thin air!

Is the only evidence continental fit? I.e. the shape fit together when the diameter is reduced?

Assume the increase in mass is real, what would be the effect?

a. the orbit will change, for the earth that will be rather disastrous, because it means that it must have occupied an orbit further out in the past.
b. Likewise for the moon.  If the process is going on today we should see the moon spiralling in, but it’s not it is actually moving away form the earth. (Assumption  -proportional rates of expansion for planetary diameter).

Where does the water go?, it should produce a “water world”

, er no they didn’t that link is to a Neil Adams web site, he has pasted an article about giant insects (which does not mention his increasing earth diameter at all)

No matter, have a look at this link Who is Neil Adams
Extracts -  My bold.

You have been reading fiction.

View Post



What is the proposed mechanism for increasing the planetary mass?  You just can’t make mass appear out of thin air!


Isn't that where the whole scientific debate on life's origins begins with? mass being created from nothing? I thought that was the Evolutionists point to debate?...we say God created the heavens and the earth and evolutionists believe that the universe came from nothing...mind you as recently as last week they are now saying it was a marble sized object...but the question remains where did the marble sized object come from in the first place?

If you cannot make mass appear from nothing how did all the higher elements in the periodic table evolve from Hydrogen?

What if they evolve through a nuclear reaction?...what if the core of the earth was a nuclear reactor? I mean after all we don't truly know what lies at the core.

If a nuclear reaction can form He from H2 and lead to the higher elements in the periodic table, then why would the mass of the earth not increase if the core of the earth was some sort of nuclear reactor?

Thus the same reaction which allows a star to form and build mass would be equally the same reactions that are going on at the core of the Earth building mass and causing the volume to increase.

a. the orbit will change, for the earth that will be rather disastrous, because it means that it must have occupied an orbit further out in the past.
b. Likewise for the moon.  If the process is going on today we should see the moon spiralling in, but it’s not it is actually moving away form the earth. (Assumption  -proportional rates of expansion for planetary diameter).

Where does the water go?, it should produce a “water world”


A: Yes but to what extent? if the orbit would change then yes we could have a disasterous effect but what would the actual orbit be? closer? if that is the case, closer by how much? although the mass would change would the density change? a decrease in volume doesn't necessarily mean a change in density.

If I heat up a piece of steel and it expands, I do get a volume increase but the density is still the same. The piece of steel still weighs the same but it's surface area increases proportinal to the volume increase but the weight still has not changed.

Water is after all made from a chemical reaction between H2 and O2 is it not? with that being said once the reaction causes the higher elements to form would there then not be a possibility for water to form when Oxygen molecules begin to form?...yes.

The orbit may have changed, equally the axial rotation may have increased which we have evidence that our angular velocity of the earth is in a decline which means we used to rotate faster.

We would have also seen an immense change in both atmospheric pressure as well as Oxygen levels in the atmosphere because with a decrease in atmospheric volume there would be an increase in atmospheric pressure. A decrease in surface area of water to an increase of surface area of land would also account for higher levels of Oxygen in the atmosphere due to a greater ratio of surface area with oxygen producing plants.

The theory is quite sound...if we want to take it one step further Biblically we can then also theorize that the water canopy theory as mentioned in Genesis 1:7.

7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.


This would render the creation account being passed down from generation to generation relatively accurate. If there were a change in Earth's volume, the earth's magnetic field would have equally increased maybe doubled, which would also act as a shield aginst increased solar and or cosmic radiation which would be also filtered by a water/vapor barrier in the atmosphere....just take a look at all the gas giants in our solar system...you can't deny that our gasses couldn't have been made from water.

The only possibility that dinosaurs could have existed on earth is in an environment with a decreased gravity, increased oxygen levels and greater atmospheric pressure in order for their breathing capacity to be maintained, they would never survive under our present atmospheric and gravitational conditions.

The facts are there are not similar dinosaur fossils found on continents which are seperated by thousands of miles, there are identical fossils found on continents which are seperated by thousands of miles.

The account of creation also never mentions Oceans, it only mentions Seas. Seas are much smaller "bodies" of water as opposed to the vastness of our oceans.

Again, Genesis 1:10 says:

10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.


No mentions of oceans, funny enough Neal Adams is a big time evolutionist and even his theory says that there couldn't have been oceans during the time of the dinoasuars.

Genesis 1:9 further caps the account by gathering the majority of water under the earth in one place, yet again further proving that the flood waters came from under the earth, the waters were continuosly being pushed up and pressurized nder the earth until the fountains of the great deep had broken up, Genesis 7:11.

Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so

Genesis 7:11 ... the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.


The only part where I disagree with Neal is on the age gap, there still is no explanation to the tropical vegetation found in Antarctica , this can only be one of two things...either rapid continental shift or sudden climate change.

The origins of the Sahara desert by the science community is dated to about 4000 years ago and was caused by a "Sudden Change in Atmosphere" well they called it a "Brutal" change, you can read about that here: Sahara Born 4000 years ago....

A sudden climate change would also fall under the category of a sudden change in atmospheric pressure killing off the dinoasaur en masse globally.

The only other issue I have is trying to figure out why there are ocean fossils at the top of the Himalayas, this could only be an indication of again rapid tectonic shifting, ocean creatures are not so dumb that they would slowly, incrementally allow themselves to be drawn up onto dry land inches per year...they would sense the change in water depth and continue to move to deeper water if it was a slow ongoing process of millions of years...nothing is that stupid.

If we place the two together, rapid continental drift as well as sudden atmospheric change we would then have the exact conditions to what would contribute to a global catastrophe that not only wiped out every living animal, it would also leave a tremendous amount of sedimentation to which strata would form helping geologists make the eroneous claim to strata dating.

Also with a decrease in volume then the probability that the entire planet was engulfed in a global flood would be entirely possible. After a sudden change in atmosphere, a change in axial position, a change in orbit around the sun and a decrease in angular velocity, an ice age would follow forming the polar caps rapidly, sudden pressure changes cause tremendous changes in temperatures, open up a bottle of pressurized oxygen and watch the ice form on the outlet.

Works for me.


You still haven't commented on NASA's images...NASA still hasn't come forward to say that he has doctored them, in fact, they are now saying that subduction is not taking place on Mars yet there is clearly volcanic activity....you cannot deny the videos, they are NASA's own images.
Peace
CJ

#10 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 26 March 2006 - 02:30 PM

Pt1

A. Isn't that where the whole scientific debate on life's origins begins with? mass being created from nothing? I thought that was the Evolutionists point to debate?...we say God created the heavens and the earth and evolutionists believe that the universe came from nothing...mind you as recently as last week they are now saying it was a marble sized object...but the question remains where did the marble sized object come from in the first place?
B. If you cannot make mass appear from nothing how did all the higher elements in the periodic table evolve from Hydrogen?


A. That the Big bang happened is not in doubt (scientifically) but exactly how the big bang started, as you say from nothing, is not known.

B. Nuclear synthesis in the cores of stars. But this is not something from nothing, this is just converting one out of the other, the net sum of mass and energy are in equilibrium, nothing is lost.

What if they evolve through a nuclear reaction?...what if the core of the earth was a nuclear reactor? I mean after all we don't truly know what lies at the core.

If a nuclear reaction can form He from H2 and lead to the higher elements in the periodic table, then why would the mass of the earth not increase if the core of the earth was some sort of nuclear reactor?


Basically there is not enough heat nor pressure by several orders of magnitude. You need atomic fusion (hydrogen bomb) not atomic fission (atom bomb) as the mechanism.


Thus the same reaction which allows a star to form and build mass would be equally the same reactions that are going on at the core of the Earth building mass and causing the volume to increase.


The mass of the star does not increase as it fuses higher elements, it is only converting.


A: Yes but to what extent? if the orbit would change then yes we could have a disasterous effect but what would the actual orbit be? closer? if that is the case, closer by how much? although the mass would change would the density change? a decrease in volume doesn't necessarily mean a change in density. If I heat up a piece of steel and it expands, I do get a volume increase but the density is still the same. The piece of steel still weighs the same but it's surface area increases proportinal to the volume increase but the weight still has not changed.


If the mass increased without a corresponding speeding up, the earth would spiral in to a lower orbit. If it were an increase in volume, not mass, the orbit would not change.




Water is after all made from a chemical reaction between H2 and O2 is it not? with that being said once the reaction causes the higher elements to form would there then not be a possibility for water to form when Oxygen molecules begin to form?...yes.

yes, but I don’t see how this will help.

The orbit may have changed, equally the axial rotation may have increased which we have evidence that our angular velocity of the earth is in a decline which means we used to rotate faster.


hmmmmmmmm, I’m thinking that an increase in diameter will slow the rotation (conservation of angular momentum) e.g. a ice skater will spin faster as he tightens up an slow the spin as he opens up his arms.

P.S. I think we can safely exclude Neal Adams from any position of scientific authority, yes?

Plus it’s a fictitious story, did you not read the last link?

#11 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 26 March 2006 - 07:41 PM

re Mars

You still haven't commented on NASA's images...NASA still hasn't come forward to say that he has doctored them, in fact, they are now saying that subduction is not taking place on Mars yet there is clearly volcanic activity....you cannot deny the videos, they are NASA's own images.
Peace

Regrettably I can’t download video on my computer (limited bandwidth), if you can please direct me to pictures.
However from what I do know about Mars, the volcanic activity ceased a long time ago, I believe the current theory is that Mars has cooled internally below the point of a fluid mantle and has fused with the crust.

#12 Christopher_John

Christopher_John

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • Interests:Messianic Prophecy.<br /><br /> I work very odd hours, I will eventually get back into the discussion with you, just be patient I'm not avoiding any topic.
  • Age: 41
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Montreal, Canada

Posted 26 March 2006 - 10:45 PM

Pt1

A. That the Big bang happened is not in doubt (scientifically) but exactly how the big bang started, as you say from nothing, is not known.

B. Nuclear synthesis in the cores of stars.  But this is not something from nothing, this is just converting one out of the other, the net sum of mass and energy are in equilibrium, nothing is lost.
Basically there is not enough heat nor pressure by several orders of magnitude.  You need atomic fusion (hydrogen bomb) not atomic fission (atom bomb) as the mechanism.
The mass of the star does not increase as it fuses higher elements, it is only converting.
If the mass increased without a corresponding speeding up, the earth would spiral in to a lower orbit.  If it were an increase in volume, not mass, the orbit would not change.
yes, but I don’t see how this will help.
hmmmmmmmm, I’m thinking that an increase in diameter will slow the rotation (conservation of angular momentum) e.g. a ice skater will spin faster as he tightens up an slow the spin as he opens up his arms.

P.S. I think we can safely exclude Neal Adams from any position of scientific authority, yes?

Plus it’s a fictitious story, did you not read the last link?

View Post


A. That the Big bang happened is not in doubt (scientifically) but exactly how the big bang started, as you say from nothing, is not known.


Well I wouldn't say that its not in doubt scientifically, the Big Bang theory is after all a leap of faith. We weren't there to witness it so therefore at present the big bang is more of a fantasy than it is a reality.

Yes it is quite a problem, the evolutionist community seems to be split down the middle on cosmic evolution (this I'm pretty sure you're aware). One part of the community will only go as far as to say that the universe was compressed into a smaller extremely dense region, as we have had theories over the past 100 years from a region being trillions of miles across to a few million miles across, hundreds of thousands of miles across to one trillionth the diameter of a proton to as recently as the past month, marble sized, one half inch in diameter.

The other half of the community still wants to know the origins from which the matter came from, in order to be compressed in the first place and ultimately in which capacity and or unknown dimension was this matter being retained and by what opposing forces?

The first half of the community wants to remain on the cyclic theory of expansion and contraction via frequency thus avoiding the question of origins but the other half does believe that there had to be a critical point from which the universe evolved.


P.S. I think we can safely exclude Neal Adams from any position of scientific authority, yes?


Not necessarily, I do believe that he did mention he has a back ground in both Physics and Geology, he did say (in a radio interview) that he did not get his Ph.D. in these areas but I do believe he has done an extensive study in these two fields for over thirty years.

Although he would be mainly referred to as an amateur scientist because he does not make it his forefront, nonetheless, he is a scientist and thus has brought forth some spectacular evidence to support his theory, which in itself is much better than any of the other scientists have come up with in the past because they usually come with a theory and very little evidence if any at all.

I would say he has even gone one step further by taking third party data and information and has clearly pointed out some gross errors in the interpretation of Geology not only on planets and moons but as well as here on earth.

B. Nuclear synthesis in the cores of stars.  But this is not something from nothing, this is just converting one out of the other, the net sum of mass and energy are in equilibrium, nothing is lost.
Basically there is not enough heat nor pressure by several orders of magnitude.  You need atomic fusion (hydrogen bomb) not atomic fission (atom bomb) as the mechanism.
The mass of the star does not increase as it fuses higher elements, it is only converting.


Agreed, unfortunately this is status quo, what we observe in stars today is after the fact, it still doesn't lead to a remote hypothesis of where exactly did these elements come from in order for this synthesis to occurr.

Conversion requires matter and thus the same logic applies which could be equated to the "Life's Origin" experiments which went on for 30 years after Millers first experiments, how do you create living matter from non-living matter, even micro and or molecular biology suffers from the same problem, the complexity to create something from nothing cannot be simply theorized and tested, it is beyond the scope of mankinds understanding.

If the mass increased without a corresponding speeding up, the earth would spiral in to a lower orbit.  If it were an increase in volume, not mass, the orbit would not change.


I'm not sure, if Mercury's mass is about 3.3 x 1023 kg, Venus' mass is about 4.87 x 1024 kg, Earth's is 5.9742 × 1024 kg etc...

I would expect if the mass were less at one point in our past the planet would have drawn nearer to the sun? they are in order by mass no?

The logic is pretty sound, I don't think scientifically his theory of rifting could be disproven considering subduction itself is purely theoretical, Neal's evidence using NASA's images is far more sound than what has been produced for sub duction since its inception.

We do have to keep in mind that Neal's main focus is about sub duction and that his model clearly provides compelling evidence that he in fact is correct. The rest of the smaller earth theory is an extrapolation, logically speaking, if rifting and spreading is occuring as opposed to subduction, then the previous theory of Pangae is partially supported. Scientists original hypothesis of Pangae would be correct with a slight modification to the inner mechanisms to how just exactly the continents broke apart, this is why it is so important that you see these videos, what Neal has provided particularly with Mars and Europa is tectonic shifting via rifting and spreading.

On either side of these rifts, which are seperated by many miles, are the half moon craters where the rifting split the plate right down the middle of the craters, the material , low level land mass is void of meteor craters. When the two halves are brought together the meteor craters are then realigned perfectly. The lack of craters in the lower regions (in the spread between the rift) there are no craters, this indicates that the land mass between the rifts are much younger than the higher land mass.

Unfortunately I cannot provide you with any image links, the images he used are in the videos and I cannot get still images of his presentation, I would suggest trying to view them at a friends place with a high bandwidth connection.

The best I can provide is a link of a comical "Lesson" so to speak, on his theory. This is basically using animated gifs so the bandwidth problem may not be that big of an issue.

http://www.nealadams...ject/toon1.html

As far as volcanic activity on Mars goes you are correct it was on IO...

Peace
CJ

#13 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 27 March 2006 - 01:37 PM

chance>  That the Big bang happened is not in doubt (scientifically) but exactly how the big bang started, as you say from nothing, is not known.


Christopher_John> Well I wouldn't say that its not in doubt scientifically, the Big Bang theory is after all a leap of faith. We weren't there to witness it so therefore at present the big bang is more of a fantasy thaan it is a reality.

Yes it is quite a problem, the evolutionist community seems to be split down the middle on cosmic evolution (this I'm pretty sure you're aware). One part of the community will only go as far as to say that the universe was compressed into a smaller extremely dense region, as we have had theories over the past 100 years from a region being trillions of miles across to a few million miles across, hundreds of thousands of miles across to one trillionth the diameter of a proton to as recently as the past month, marble sized, one half inch in diameter.

The other half of the community still wants to know the origins from which the matter came from, in order to be compressed in the first place and ultimately in which capacity and or unknown dimension was this matter being retained by what opposing forces.


The first half of the community wants to remain on the cyclic theory of expansion and contraction via frequency thus avoiding the question of origins but the other half does believe that there had to be a critical point from which the universe evolved.



But neither group would disagree that the big bang happened as they both work from the same evidence (expanding universe and background microwave radiation etc), before that point in time is still subject to investigation, but not after. That is why I stated it is not in doubt, exactly how it happened is irrelevant to the facts that are measurable today. Anyhow we are getting needlessly sidetracked on this issue. Moving on.



chance> P.S. I think we can safely exclude Neal Adams from any position of scientific authority, yes?


Christopher_John> Not necessarily, I do believe that he did mention he has a back ground in both Physics and Geology, he did say (in a radio interview) that he did not get his Ph.D. in these areas but I do believe he has done an extensive study in these two fields for over thirty years.

Although he would be mainly referred to as an amateur scientist because he does not make it his forefront, nonetheless, he is a scientist and thus has brought forth some spectacular evidence to support his theory, which in itself is much better than any of the other scientists have come up with in the past because they usually come with a theory and very little evidence if any at all.

I would say he has even gone one step further by taking third party data and information and has clearly pointed out some gross errors in the interpretation of Geology not only on planets and moons but as well as here on earth.


There is a difference in being educated in science (one would think it rather necessary to write science fiction) to being an authority on science. Neil Adams is a science fiction writer, and his story on expanding planest is one of his works of fiction.


chance> B. Nuclear synthesis in the cores of stars.  But this is not something from nothing, this is just converting one out of the other, the net sum of mass and energy are in equilibrium, nothing is lost.
Basically there is not enough heat nor pressure by several orders of magnitude.  You need atomic fusion (hydrogen bomb) not atomic fission (atom bomb) as the mechanism.
The mass of the star does not increase as it fuses higher elements, it is only converting.


Christopher_John> Agreed, unfortunately this is status quo, what we observe in stars today is after the fact, it still doesn't lead to a remote hypothesis of where exactly did these elements come from in order for this synthesis to occurr.


Agreed, but irrelevant unless Neil Adams has proposed how something comes from nothing in his story, only then can that aspect be discussed.

Conversion requires matter and thus the same logic applies which could be equated to the "Life's Origin" experiments which went on for 30 years after Millers first experiments, how do you create living matter from non-living matter, even micro and or molecular biology suffers from the same problem, the complexity to create something from nothing cannot be simply theorized and tested, it is beyond the reach of mankind and will always be.


This has been discussed in other threads, but essential you are confusing two separate processes, i.e. evolution (how life changes over time) and abiogenesis (how life comes from non life). I respectfully request we discuss this in a separate topic (one exists already).


chance> If the mass increased without a corresponding speeding up, the earth would spiral in to a lower orbit.  If it were an increase in volume, not mass, the orbit would not change.


Christopher_John> Agreed, if Mercury's mass is about 3.3 x 1023 kg, Venus' mass is about 4.87 x 1024 kg, Earth's is 5.9742 × 1024 kg etc...

I would expect if the mass were less at one point in our past the planet would have drawn nearer to the sun, so again the door is open for even greater speculation according to Neal's theory.

The logic is pretty sound, I don't think scientifically his theory of rifting could be disproven considering subduction itself is purely theoretical, Neal's evidence using NASA's images is far more sound than what has been produced for sub duction since its inception.


The logic, such as it is, makes a great plot for a science fiction story.

We do have to keep in mind that Neal's main focus is about sub duction and that his model clearly provides compelling evidence that he in fact is correct. The rest of the smaller earth theory is an extrapolation, logically speaking, if rifting and spreading is occuring as opposed to subduction, then the previous theory of Pangae is partially supported. Scientists original hypothesis of Pangae would be correct with a slight modification to the inner mechanisms to how just exactly the continents broke apart, this is why it is so important that you see these videos, what Neal has provided particularly with Mars and Europa is tectonic shifting via rifting and spreading.

On either side of these rifts, which are seperated by many miles, are the half moon craters where the rifting split the plate right down the middle of the craters, the material , low level land mass is void of meteor craters. When the two halves are brought together the meteor craters are then realigned perfectly. The lack of craters in the lower regions (in the spread between the rift) there are no craters, this indicates that the land mass between the rifts are much younger than the higher land mass.

Unfortunately I cannot provide you with any image links the images, I would suggest trying to view them at a friends place with high bandwidth.

At best he has a comical "Lesson" so to speak on his theory. This is basically using animated gifs so the bandwidth problem may not be that big of an issue.

http://www.nealadams...ject/toon1.html

As far as volcanic activity on Mars goes you are correct it was on IO...


One last time – please comment on the following article at http://www.ninthart....php?article=513

You have been reading a work of science fiction. From the article:

His latest project is A CONVERSATION BETWEEN TWO GUYS IN A BAR, OR A NEW MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE, a 125-page comic about theoretical physics. The basic premise seems to be that the Earth is steadily increasing in mass and volume, that matter is infinite and that there is a previously undiscovered particle that he calls "dark matter". His theories were subject to a long article in the March 2001 issue of Wired Magazine and the article, which is available online, makes for interesting reading. At the time of the interview, the arrival of the book is imminent.

my bold.

#14 Christopher_John

Christopher_John

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • Interests:Messianic Prophecy.<br /><br /> I work very odd hours, I will eventually get back into the discussion with you, just be patient I'm not avoiding any topic.
  • Age: 41
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Montreal, Canada

Posted 07 April 2006 - 11:20 AM

But neither group would disagree that the big bang happened as they both work from the same evidence (expanding universe and background microwave radiation etc), before that point in time is still subject to investigation, but not after.  That is why I stated it is not in doubt, exactly how it happened is irrelevant to the facts that are measurable today.  Anyhow we are getting needlessly sidetracked on this issue.  Moving on.
There is a difference in being educated in science (one would think it rather necessary to write science fiction) to being an authority on science.  Neil Adams is a science fiction writer, and his story on expanding planest is one of his works of fiction.
Agreed, but irrelevant unless Neil Adams has proposed how something comes from nothing in his story, only then can that aspect be discussed.
This has been discussed in other threads, but essential you are confusing two separate processes, i.e. evolution (how life changes over time) and abiogenesis (how life comes from non life).  I respectfully request we discuss this in a separate topic (one exists already).
The logic, such as it is, makes a great plot for a science fiction story.
One last time – please comment on the following article at http://www.ninthart....php?article=513

You have been reading a work of science fiction.  From the article:  my bold.

View Post


I'm not certain I follow you on the link?...I'm quite aware of Neal Adams artistic capabilities I was a comic book collector for many years. The link is nothing more than a biography of his carreer as a comic book illustrator.

Neal Aadms models carry far more weight and evidence than the theory of the Big Bang itself. Unfortunately you cannot view them, so your responses on the subject are erroneous until you can view the evidence yourself in order to substantiate his hypothesis to be factual and or as you say fiction.

I fear this discussion leading to a debate of adhominem because you need to see the evidence before extrapolating an opinion, you however have already concluded your opinion without viewing the facts...if even NASA is now saying that rifting is happening on both Mars and Europa and that in fact subduction is not taking place, what evidence do you have that can challenge NASA?

The Big Bang theory is itself nothing more than a theory...as well as the expanding universe. The theory is just "Commonly Accepted" because there is at present no better an explanation, this however does not grant it as factual.

Without being able to define the end of the universe how can we extrapolate that the universe is constantly expanding when we don't even know its limitations if any...? I'm like the agnostic where science is concerned if I can observe it in real time ...in reality, then I can accept it as fact.

Neal Adams models of rifting and spreading without subduction carries both, real time and reality. However, the Big Bang and or the constantly expanding Universe does not...its unproven empirically and is purely theoretical.

Its a fact that there are regions litered with craters on both sides of a rift and a spread but yet there are few if any craters in the new spread of silicate growth from the planets inner core. How can you have hundreds if not thousands of meteor strikes randomly spread on either side of these low lands but the low lands themselves have few or in some cases no meteor craters at all in the spread this is due in fact that the spread is younger than the high lands on either side of the spread.

I honestly have to say that a continued discussion of this topic will be futile without you taking the time to view his models using NASA's images, he is after all challenging the entire Geological Scientific community to prove him wrong on rifting and spreading and so far he's winning...NASA is a prime example.

I fail to see where this lies with fiction when even NASA now refers to these gorges as rifting and spreading.

#15 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 09 April 2006 - 02:01 PM

I'm not certain I follow you on the link?...I'm quite aware of Neal Adams artistic capabilities I was a comic book collector for many years. The link is nothing more than a biography of his carreer as a comic book illustrator.


Scroll down to this bit from the link and you come to this text

His latest project is A CONVERSATION BETWEEN TWO GUYS IN A BAR, OR A NEW MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE, a 125-page comic about theoretical physics. The basic premise seems to be that the Earth is steadily increasing in mass and volume, that matter is infinite and that there is a previously undiscovered particle that he calls "dark matter". His theories were subject to a long article in the March 2001 issue of Wired Magazine and the article, which is available online, makes for interesting reading. At the time of the interview, the arrival of the book is imminent.


All that you have been describing so far is verbatim from this fictional story. it’s just that Neal Adams has written it in the third person, and it appears, released it on the internet, (perhaps as a precursor to a book).

For the remainder of your question I believe I have covered them as best I can showing the I various problems with story, and while it may make a fine science fiction story, there are some serious ‘real science’ issues. ‘poetic licence’ is evoked to make a better story.

I feel that you are some what embarrassed to admit the articles you have been reading are fiction rather than factual, then don’t be. I think Neal Adams would be rather flattered as it the hallmark of great character actors and/or writers to make the experience so real as to be believed.

One more aspect – A new Mars satellite has recent gone into orbit around Mars, when it is in it’s final low orbit (around the end of this year), it will begin to take very high resolution pictures. I predict you will find cratering in the rift areas consistent with an ‘Old Mars” i.e.

· Planet coalesces
· Bombardment phase
· Cooling
· Bombardment tapers off
· Rifts are created as planet shrinks (little internal heat), not the same process as on the earth where rifts are caused bey continental drift. On Mars the great rift is something like a quarter of the circumference and dwarfs the earths grand canyon.
· Bombardment peters out to current rates.

Here is a link to the Mars global surveyor images http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/

#16 Christopher_John

Christopher_John

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • Interests:Messianic Prophecy.<br /><br /> I work very odd hours, I will eventually get back into the discussion with you, just be patient I'm not avoiding any topic.
  • Age: 41
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Montreal, Canada

Posted 11 May 2006 - 05:48 AM

Scroll down to this bit from the link and you come to this text

All that you have been describing so far is verbatim from this fictional story.   it’s just that Neal Adams has written it in the third person, and it appears, released it on the internet, (perhaps as a precursor to a book). 

For the remainder of your question I believe I have covered them as best I can showing the I various problems with story, and while it may make a fine science fiction story, there are some serious ‘real science’ issues.  ‘poetic licence’ is evoked to make a better story.

I feel that you are some what embarrassed to admit the articles you have been reading are fiction rather than factual, then don’t be. I think Neal Adams would be rather flattered as it the hallmark of great character actors and/or writers to make the experience so real as to be believed.

One more aspect – A new Mars satellite has recent gone into orbit around Mars, when it is in it’s final low orbit (around the end of this year), it will begin to take very high resolution pictures.  I predict you will find cratering in the rift areas consistent with an ‘Old Mars” i.e.

· Planet coalesces
· Bombardment phase
· Cooling
· Bombardment tapers off
· Rifts are created as planet shrinks (little internal heat), not the same process as on the earth where rifts are caused bey continental drift. On Mars the great rift is something like a quarter of the circumference and dwarfs the earths grand canyon.
· Bombardment peters out to current rates.

Here is a link to the Mars global surveyor images http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/

View Post


and here is NASA's press release supporting tectonic rifting on Mars. Again NASA's scientists support it and write about it...why are you so more correct than they and they are actually the ones bringing the data forth for rifting as opposed to subducting.

Like I said way at the begining...Neal Adams just uses their information to be more outspoken publicly...he has nothing to lose all the others could lose their jobs trying to promote a change of a theory that has been around for about 100 years.

Is NASA telling a fairy tale too?

http://www.spaceflig...0510/17marsmap/

Chris

#17 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 11 May 2006 - 01:52 PM

and here is NASA's press release supporting tectonic rifting on Mars. Again NASA's scientists support it and write about it...why are you so more correct than they and they are actually the ones bringing the data forth for rifting as opposed to subducting.

Like I said way at the begining...Neal Adams just uses their information to be more outspoken publicly...he has nothing to lose all the others could lose their jobs trying to promote a change of a theory that has been around for about 100 years.

Is NASA telling a fairy tale too?


From the Wiki: plate tectonics

is a theory of geology developed to explain the phenomenon of continental drift


continental drift movie

In geology, a subduction zone is an area on Earth where two tectonic plates meet, move towards one another, with one sliding underneath the other and moving down into the mantle, at a speed of several inches per year. Typically, an oceanic plate slides underneath a continental plate, and this often creates a zone with many volcanoes and earthquakes. In a sense, subduction zones are the opposite of divergent boundaries, areas where material rises up from the mantle and plates are moving apart.


Posted Image




I may be a little out of date re Martian geology, the reason continental drift was discounted on Mars was that it was too small and cooled too rapidly. It seem there is now some evidence of continental drift on Mars. All this is somewhat irrelevant to the nonsense of expanding planets (subduction). If you disagree, please explain to me, how the science of plate tectonics (earth or Mars) shows any relation to Neal Adams fictional story or old subduction. neal adams(my bold)

This article does not lay it all out but I will. Earth's surface... they properly say, rifts and spreads and THEY, the scientists of Earth have not faced the simple fact that the Earth is growing! ...that will all change, now... because now, it must.

In order to hide the terrible truth (terrible???) that the Earth is growing, "the scientific community" insisted on the concept of "subduction" and has for over 30 years. A concept that is totally untrue and basically has never been proven.



#18 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 29 April 2007 - 01:26 PM

A bit of a belated apology to Christopher_John, in my post #15 (and others) I made repeated claims that Neal Adams ideas on an expanding earth were part of a fictional story. Apparently Neal is serious about his ideas after all. A podcast interview of Neal explaining his position can be found here LINK at podcast number 52.

#19 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 30 April 2007 - 05:49 AM

The mass of the star does not increase as it fuses higher elements, it is only converting.

View Post


Stars actually lose mass as they fuse elements together because some of the matter is converted into energy.

#20 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 30 April 2007 - 01:40 PM

chance>
The mass of the star does not increase as it fuses higher elements, it is only converting.

jason78>
Stars actually lose mass as they fuse elements together because some of the matter is converted into energy.


Let me clarify my original statement - it was a generalisation in reply to the rather bizarre notion of an expanding earth

Christopher_John>
Thus the same reaction which allows a star to form and build mass would be equally the same reactions that are going on at the core of the Earth building mass and causing the volume to increase


As you can see Christopher_John seems to be under the impression that building heavier elements in the core of the sun brings about extra mass! which I think you will agree is very wrong.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users