creationist

hi creationist here..i like your reply to my suggestion that your theory was speculation..you are right,its a very interesting idea and I will have to read your post several times in order to really get fully what your saying. you are obviously a brilliant man! I was a little on edge last night when I commented on your post...there seems to be a lot of arrogance present in these science rooms and it got the best of me...no offense I hope. I do have a question for you maybe you can help me out here...what do you know about the newly discovered Crossover Depth in the mantle??

sorry thats crossover depth not crossover point

pantheory, hi creationist here. one thing that is interesting about finding exposed water ice on mercury is that even at temperatures close to zero kelvin,sublimation is still an important factor. this calles into question the age of this water,presumably also,the age of mercury. the finding strongly suggests that the ice cannot be millions of years old. by itself,of course, this is a weak argument for a young solar system; however this and other factors begain adding up to a strong argument. pantheory, hi creationist here. one thing that is interesting about finding exposed water ice on mercury is that even at temperatures close to zero kelvin,sublimation is still an important factor. this calles into question the age of this water,presumably also,the age of mercury. the finding strongly suggests that the ice cannot be millions of years old. by itself,of course, this is a weak argument for a young solar system; however this and other factors begain adding up to a strong argument.

hi all I would like anyone who has any information on the newly discovered "crossover point" in the mantle to share their findings with me..much thanks!!

radical edward,,,thats an impressive little post,however just showing gene sequences doesnt prove anything,please explain to us in detail just how,on the molecular level,random mutations can cause new species to emerge,when none have ever been observed,even with massive effort on the part of molecular biologists to do so.

danielc...if you really believe that crap about Earth being better off without humans,you would do the world a favor and recycle yourself.

hi group!! in responce to Gliese 581g being Earth-like,as many of you pointed out,it is not Earth-like at all,most certainly a toxic hell where no life can exist. the so called ''goldilocks zones'' probably dont exist either,a life bearing planet needs many overlapping vectors to sustain life. Earth acts as a huge organism,where all life is interconnected,and dependent on all the others,for instance,if you wiped out all the plankton,the entire food chain would fall apart,rendering the Earth almost devoid of ambulatory creatures. it is plain that Gliese 581g doesnt have this ability.

hi Ophiolite..thank you for responding so quickly...i admire your skills as a debater..you would make a great lawyer..first...in saying my statements are unsubstantiated..neither of us has irefutable proof of our veiws..if so,there wouldnt be any debate..you have the advantage of all the great universities and science books sharing your veiw..but history shows that is no garrenty of correctness..evidence is on both sides of the argument, but its interprted according to the world veiw of the speaker...for instance..Mr Haskells work is great..but he could not know all the possible peramiters involved in the vicosity of the mantle,when he nor anyone else has ever been able to even get one sample of mantle material. Mr Baumgarner has made proably the best effort to date to give a 3D overveiw of subduction, but even his superior mathamatics skill is still just theory. when i said everything above rises..i bookened that with the statement;''this only applies to liquid magma''..of course this would only be magma, when i dont belive the mantle convects at all..i may be wrong,the mantle may convect,but no one has shown conclusivly that it can or does..it is assumed,therefore all uniformatarian papers on the subject will reflect that idea that it does convect..but not all scientsists are uniformatarianists,just as not all scientists are Darwinists..perhaps you could read the petition intitled ''A dissent from Darwin'' all signatures were from respected Phd's in a wide range of scientific disiplines....so are all those guys non scientific because they dont take to the popular worldveiw? its now 10;40..so i will respond to your other objections probably next week...by the way..your points were very good,and do require an answer..when i come back..i will do my best..i only have a high school education..so i cant hope to match your expertise..whitch i will always respect..i love educated people..but i do a lot of studies on my own..and hope to build on that talking to you...if you make i point i cant refute..i will gladly acknowlege it,even the wisest of men are an island of knowlege in an ocean of ignorance..im painfully aware of that in my own life..talk to you soon..your freind,creationist.

hi, in responce to your question concerning Benioff zones.........if the area we know of as the Pacific basin were suddenly depressed by several miles,the outer edges would crack in an angular fashion all around the perimeter at an angle roughly repesentitive of the current observed Benioff zones. this would leave an unstable ring around the Pacific where,in the Earths efforts to become more spherical,would be the area most likely to shift..resulting in volcanos and earthquakes. how did the Pacific sink several miles suddenly??? sounds like a fairy tales right?? so did the helio-centric veiw when it was first postulated. if the Earth had originally an unbroken granitic crust with 3/4 mile of water trapped 10 miles down slowly building pressure..the gravitational tides would eventually cause this water (in superfluid state) to erupt through the crust..as the rip traversed the globe, it would erode quickly enough rock around the rip to cause the underlying basalt in its hot pressurized plastic form to suddeny spring up several miles..thus the opposite side of the Earth wound sink in responce to this..thus explaining the appearance of Benioff zones. of cource since none alive today were there,we can only try to put the observed with physical laws to postulate what happened...this is what Werner did,and scientists can only do today,having spoken to Earth science professers from several prominent universities,they mostly agree at least that this idea is at least possible..but cannot say so publicly for fear of reprisals this is not my idea of course this took a much greater mind than mine to make that leap,but seems at least,to better fit what is observed . p.s. ....please forgive my spelling..it dosent mean im retarded or wrong automaticly...lol.. >^..^< also..in responce to "why would you expect them to"..two things you have missed in your responce that may change the values...first,recent discoveries have shown the mantle to be very heterogenious,implying no admixture has occured..second,the "crossover depth" has shown that every thing below 400 miles sinks,everything above rises.that only applies to liquid magma..the mantle is a solid,so convection cannot occur at all, least by our currant understanding of how slolids behave under great pressure.

hello,in responce to the question about plate tectonics, there are some problems with the current view of how plate tectonics work...first,in trying to develop a 3D model of the earth assuming mantle convection as the power source for moving the continents..the circulation patterns in no way match up to the observed positions of the continents..secondly,and most important....subduction as is described in the textbooks is not possible...in other words,you cannot subduct a thin brittle lightweight slab under a dense,compressed mass.