Yellowstone & Catastrophe (General)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, December 23, 2014, 16:56 (3624 days ago) @ David Turell


> > Tony: The problem is that what we know of plate tetonic movement is very much speculation and it very often continues to surprise us 
> > 
> > This change was completely unexpected based on the current theory of plate tetonics. What do we say when a theory does not accurately predict the observations? We say that theory is wrong. Perhaps not completely wrong, but wrong in some respect. In this case it is wrong in respect to the rate at which plate shifts happen. Period. That doesn't mean that we take the new data and use it as the new maximum, it means we go back and take a hard look at why we ever thought that was the speed limit to begin with.
> 
> I don't agree with your view, in that you admit that it is a theory under study, and only 60 years old from the time it was accepted. Of course, a sudden change was surprising, but the process is still slow and fossils can reach mountain tops after formation by subduction and elevation. This is an active three-plate area and it is changing. But the theory is pretty solid at its basis. From the article:
> 
> "The Afar Triangle, which cuts across Ethiopia, Eritrea and Djibouti, is the largest construction site on the planet. Three tectonic plates meet there with the African and Arabian plates drifting apart along two separate fault lines by one centimeter a year. A team of scientists working with Christophe Vigny of the Paris Laboratory of Geology reported on the phenomenon in a 2006 issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research. While the two plates move apart, the ground sinks to make room for the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden." 
> > -This is what I am talking about. Earlier in the same article it mentions changes in terms of meters in months, not centimeters in years. The article does not even agree with itself!!-
> > 
> > Tony: If this much change could happen in months, not even years, but months, when the Earth is NOT under extreme pressure stress, what would happen if the Earth WERE under extreme pressure stress?
> 
> You seem to be inventing a theory about Earth stress to fit your beliefs. The current thought about the change in this area is from the same article:
> -Not a theory, a question. A hypothesis/theory would have some attempt at an explanation and a set of falsifiable things that could be tested. This is simply a question. If geological change is happening in some areas of the earth at rates that do not fit our current geologic conception, is the reality wrong, or is our conception wrong? If a few earthquakes and volcanos can do this in miniscule time frames (geologically), what could enough water to cover the earth do?--> "The chain of volcanoes that runs along the roughly 6,000 kilometer (3,730 mile) long East African Rift System offers further testimony to the breaking apart of the continent. In some areas around the outer edges of the Rift System, the Earth's crust has already cracked open, making room for the magma below. From the Red Sea to Mozambique in the south, dozens of volcanoes have formed, the best known being Mt. Kilimanjaro and Mt. Nyiragongo. 
> 
> "These fiery mountains too will one day sink into the sea. Geophysicists have calculated that in 10 million years the East African Rift System will be as large as the Red Sea. When that happens, Africa will lose its horn."
> 
> Science is supposed to modify theories from observation. This sudden event adds to our knowledge.-Agreed. However, Uniforitarianism has only been the mainstream ideology for what, 100 years, 200 tops? Less than .1% of Human history. Do we discount 99.9% of observations when not even all of our .1% agree? Literally 230 Civilizations from around the globe share a virtually identical accounting of the flood event. So, 230 Civilizations that were thousands of years closer to the original event are less reliable than our speculations based on our .1% of observations? I am not saying that we should throw science out with the bath water, but what good is science if we refuse to ask questions and seek out all possible answers and test them? Why should we arrogantly reject and discount anything that doesn't fit our extremely limited and narrow world view?

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.