Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Sat Aug 08, 2020 2:19 pm +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 154 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Author Message
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:16 pm +0000
Posts: 495
Bart wrote:
You don’t understand. If something (anything) massive stops moving in one direction, it’s always because of a force directed opposite to the force (or momentum) that moves the object. Unless this opposite force somehow stops working at the exact moment the object stops moving, the object will bounce back and eventually bounce forward again (if the original moving force is also still present). This oscillation will go on until some static or dynamic equilibrium is reached.


Actually, I do understand. Yes, it takes an opposing force to cause motion in one direction to cease. That force may be, for example, friction. Momentum, the energy of motion, must be dissipated. When you stop a car, it doesn't actually move back and forth on the road; it would take the application of additional forces to cause it to do that. It "rocks", as I already described, due to the way it is constructed. It has springs that rapidly store and release kinetic energy. But this is by no means a necessary way to dissipate momentum. Another way is deformation; yet another way is fracture.

Quote:
Continental drift is caused basically by volcanic activity at the deep-sea borders of the continental plates. This initially pushed the plates apart and filled the resulting gaps with extruded material.


Correct.

Quote:
But eventually these forces will strike a balance when the continental plates are more or less equally distributed over the surface of the Earth.


Incorrect. As long as the volcanic activity continues, the pressure on the plates causes them to continue to drift. If and when they become blocked or stuck, they buckle or slide or rotate and the drift continues. This is why there has been more than one supercontinent in the past.

Quote:
This doesn’t mean the forces stop working, and certain mountain ranges may still grow as a result of continental compression and oscillation, but continental drift has stopped. And according to TUB it stopped 75 million years ago.


Yes, the forces don't stop working, but you simply cannot posit an unknown phenomenon, continental oscillation, for which there is neither observational nor theoretical basis. Oscillation simply is not an unavoidable mechanism of momentum dissipation, so you can't infer that it must occur when continental drift ceases. You can't even assume that it could occur without first demonstrating that a continental plate has the right kind of structure to do so.

Quote:
There is indeed very convincing evidence that e.g. North America moves about 17mm per year away from Europe or vice versa. But it’s absolutely not clear whether this movement is a continuation of the original continental drift or part of oscillation or equilibrium motion.


What makes it clear is the absence of any observational or theoretical basis for the existence of continental oscillation.

Quote:
So the evidence for continental motion is as much evidence for a theory of continuing continental drift as it is evidence for continental oscillation and/or compression. In such cases in science the simplest theory prevails (Occam’s razor). And I doubt that continuing continental drift is ultimately a simpler theory than (simply) reaching some equilibrium state like all organized dynamic systems in nature do.


No way. We have evidence for continuous continental drift over billions of years. We have an observationally well confirmed theory to explain the cause of the drift, i.e., volcanic activity. We have observational evidence of ongoing continental motion. We have observational evidence of ongoing volcanic activity. We have both theoretical and observational evidence that continental plates dissipate momentum by deformation and fracture. We have no evidence of continental oscillation at any time in the past. We have no observational or theoretical basis for thinking that continental plates are so constituted as to dissipate momentum by oscillating. We have no evidence that continental plates have reached an equilibrium state.

In short, everything we know about continental drift supports the thesis that it is ongoing, and nothing tends to show that it has ceased. Continental oscillation is not even known to be possible, let alone likely. Applying Occam's Razor correctly, the overwhelmingly likely explanation of the observables is that continental drift is indeed ongoing. So this is indeed an unambiguous example of factual error in the UB.

Quote:
First of all, space respiration is not what is called "unearned knowledge"; space respiration is knowledge we could never scientifically verify (just like the stopping of continental drift 75 million years ago can never be scientifically verified today). Hence this knowledge may be revealed.


So, space respiration has no observational consequences at all? Is that what you're saying? If so, then it has no explanatory power.

Quote:
I don’t know.. Given this observed material hierarchy of increasingly smaller constituents of all matter, I don’t think that many scientists assume it would stop at quarks. So in a way we already know (or strongly suspect) that there must be even smaller constituents of matter..


So, in your view, the fact that some scientists suspect that quarks are not fundamental means that the alleged fact that electrons are constituted by exactly 100 ultimatons is not unearned knowledge? In fact, the question of whether there is a fundamental or "ultimate" level of physical reality is itself a disputed point among scientists. At this point in history it's highly tendentious to suggest that we already know or strongly suspect the existence of not merely smaller constituents of matter, but of ultimatons.

There's also no reason to believe that we could never scientifically verify the cessation of continental drift, if it had indeed happened. If continental plates were the sorts of things that could oscillate in the way your explanation requires, that could be empirically discoverable. We do, after all, have knowledge of how different kinds of physical entities dissipate momentum.

_________________
Todd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:29 pm +0000
Posts: 2444
If the continents were really shifting around to the same degree as in the distant past we would be seeing the same volcanic activity we did many millions of years ago. However there is strong scientific evidence that volcanic activity has stabilized in many regions. So there is evidence to support TUB's claim. O:)

_________________
StrongcharactersRnotderivedfromnotdoingwrongbutratherfrom
actuallydoingrightUnselfishnesisthebadgeofhumangreatnes
Thehighestlevelsofselfrealizationareatainedbyworshipandservice
Thehapyandefectivepersonismotivatednotbyfearofwrongdoingbutby
loveofrightdoing


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:16 pm +0000
Posts: 495
boomshuka wrote:
If the continents were really shifting around to the same degree as in the distant past we would be seeing the same volcanic activity we did many millions of years ago. However there is strong scientific evidence that volcanic activity has stabilized in many regions. So there is evidence to support TUB's claim. O:)


The UB's claim is that continental drift has ceased, not just slowed down. There is no evidence, strong or weak, that continental drift has ceased, but there is direct evidence that it continues.

Try explaining to a cop at a stop sign that the fact that you slowed down is strong evidence that you stopped.

_________________
Todd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:10 am +0000
Posts: 1945
ubizmo wrote:
Bart wrote:
You don’t understand. If something (anything) massive stops moving in one direction, it’s always because of a force directed opposite to the force (or momentum) that moves the object. Unless this opposite force somehow stops working at the exact moment the object stops moving, the object will bounce back and eventually bounce forward again (if the original moving force is also still present). This oscillation will go on until some static or dynamic equilibrium is reached.
Actually, I do understand. Yes, it takes an opposing force to cause motion in one direction to cease. That force may be, for example, friction. Momentum, the energy of motion, must be dissipated. When you stop a car, it doesn't actually move back and forth on the road; it would take the application of additional forces to cause it to do that. It "rocks", as I already described, due to the way it is constructed. It has springs that rapidly store and release kinetic energy. But this is by no means a necessary way to dissipate momentum. Another way is deformation; yet another way is fracture.
I agree that the analogy of a breaking and stopping car is not entirely correct because the opposite force (friction) basically stops working the moment the car has stopped. When a continent stops drifting, both the moving force and the opposite force may (apparently) continue their action on the continent, thus producing a continental oscillation where the forces are balanced at a specific point but not before it or beyond it.

ubizmo wrote:
Quote:
Continental drift is caused basically by volcanic activity at the deep-sea borders of the continental plates. This initially pushed the plates apart and filled the resulting gaps with extruded material.
Correct.

Quote:
But eventually these forces will strike a balance when the continental plates are more or less equally distributed over the surface of the Earth.
Incorrect. As long as the volcanic activity continues, the pressure on the plates causes them to continue to drift. If and when they become blocked or stuck, they buckle or slide or rotate and the drift continues. This is why there has been more than one supercontinent in the past.
Exactly, but I wouldn’t call such buckling and/or rotating continental drift per se. The fact that there has been more than one supercontinent in the past would demonstrate that supercontinents break apart and continental pieces drift apart to form a supercontinent again, et cetera. That’s what I call continental drift and (obviously) this is basically an oscillation.

ubizmo wrote:
Quote:
This doesn’t mean the forces stop working, and certain mountain ranges may still grow as a result of continental compression and oscillation, but continental drift has stopped. And according to TUB it stopped 75 million years ago.
Yes, the forces don't stop working, but you simply cannot posit an unknown phenomenon, continental oscillation, for which there is neither observational nor theoretical basis. Oscillation simply is not an unavoidable mechanism of momentum dissipation, so you can't infer that it must occur when continental drift ceases. You can't even assume that it could occur without first demonstrating that a continental plate has the right kind of structure to do so.
I really don’t see why continents might drift but not oscillate. And (as argued) there is observational and theoretical basis for oscillation. And all natural systems either oscillate in dynamic equilibrium or collapse into (relatively) static equilibrium.

ubizmo wrote:
… In short, everything we know about continental drift supports the thesis that it is ongoing, and nothing tends to show that it has ceased. Continental oscillation is not even known to be possible, let alone likely. Applying Occam's Razor correctly, the overwhelmingly likely explanation of the observables is that continental drift is indeed ongoing. So this is indeed an unambiguous example of factual error in the UB.
As argued, continental oscillation is possible. And the assumption of unceasing continental drift (with a gradually cooling Earth) is theoretically more problematic than the assumption that eventually a dynamic equilibrium will be reached. So this is far from a factual error in TUB.

ubizmo wrote:
Quote:
First of all, space respiration is not what is called "unearned knowledge"; space respiration is knowledge we could never scientifically verify (just like the stopping of continental drift 75 million years ago can never be scientifically verified today). Hence this knowledge may be revealed.
So, space respiration has no observational consequences at all? Is that what you're saying? If so, then it has no explanatory power.
Of course space respiration has observational consequences. But we may not connect the dots in a thousand years without revelation.

ubizmo wrote:
Quote:
I don’t know.. Given this observed material hierarchy of increasingly smaller constituents of all matter, I don’t think that many scientists assume it would stop at quarks. So in a way we already know (or strongly suspect) that there must be even smaller constituents of matter..
So, in your view, the fact that some scientists suspect that quarks are not fundamental means that the alleged fact that electrons are constituted by exactly 100 ultimatons is not unearned knowledge? In fact, the question of whether there is a fundamental or "ultimate" level of physical reality is itself a disputed point among scientists. At this point in history it's highly tendentious to suggest that we already know or strongly suspect the existence of not merely smaller constituents of matter, but of ultimatons.
Revelation may reduce exactly this type of confusion by the authoritative elimination of error (101:4.6).. O:)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:09 am +0000
Posts: 722
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Quote:
The UB's claim is that continental drift has ceased, not just slowed down. There is no evidence, strong or weak, that continental drift has ceased, but there is direct evidence that it continues.

Try explaining to a cop at a stop sign that the fact that you slowed down is strong evidence that you stopped.


How is this "continuing continental drift being measured? Could it be that the whole Americas have really ceased moving westward but the eastern part is still moving westward a bit thereby the rocky mountain ranges in the west is just continuing buckling up now? If one look at the land feature of North and South America one can recognize the mountain ranges on the western side. It means there is something there that resisted the westward drift thereby crumpling up the land that created these mountain ranges. So meaning the continent really ceased to drift but the eastern side might still be moving westward due to momentum.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:29 pm +0000
Posts: 2444
ubizmo wrote:
boomshuka wrote:
If the continents were really shifting around to the same degree as in the distant past we would be seeing the same volcanic activity we did many millions of years ago. However there is strong scientific evidence that volcanic activity has stabilized in many regions. So there is evidence to support TUB's claim. O:)


The UB's claim is that continental drift has ceased, not just slowed down. There is no evidence, strong or weak, that continental drift has ceased, but there is direct evidence that it continues.

Try explaining to a cop at a stop sign that the fact that you slowed down is strong evidence that you stopped.

Okay. If you are at a stop sign and oscillating your car back and forth ever so slightly you are not actually drifting. Something can be in motion and not actually be drifting anywhere. The authors don't state all movement has stopped they only say drifting has stopped.

_________________
StrongcharactersRnotderivedfromnotdoingwrongbutratherfrom
actuallydoingrightUnselfishnesisthebadgeofhumangreatnes
Thehighestlevelsofselfrealizationareatainedbyworshipandservice
Thehapyandefectivepersonismotivatednotbyfearofwrongdoingbutby
loveofrightdoing


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:16 pm +0000
Posts: 495
Bart wrote:
I agree that the analogy of a breaking and stopping car is not entirely correct because the opposite force (friction) basically stops working the moment the car has stopped. When a continent stops drifting, both the moving force and the opposite force may (apparently) continue their action on the continent, thus producing a continental oscillation where the forces are balanced at a specific point but not before it or beyond it.


Given, however, that the volcanic action that causes continental drift has not ceased, and measurable continental motion has not ceased, there is simply nothing to indicate that the continents have stopped drifting. Oscillation involves repeated acceleration and deceleration in opposite directions, and there's simply no theoretical or observational basis for this.

Quote:
Exactly, but I wouldn’t call such buckling and/or rotating continental drift per se.


Nor do I. These are consequences of drift, and they are ways of dissipating momentum. The fact that momentum is dissipated doesn't mean drift is ceasing, as long as the volcanic energy that drives it is continuing, which it is. And if we look at the definition of the word "drift" we find "a slow and gradual movement or change from one place, condition, etc., to another" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/drift). For that matter, the definition of "continenal drift" is "the very slow movement of the continents on the surface of the Earth." (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/continental%20drift) Notice that both of these definitions would encompass continental oscillation, if there were such a thing.

Quote:
The fact that there has been more than one supercontinent in the past would demonstrate that supercontinents break apart and continental pieces drift apart to form a supercontinent again, et cetera. That’s what I call continental drift and (obviously) this is basically an oscillation.


It's just no good. It's not about what "you call" continental drift. It's about what the term actually means. The meaning is not obscure. It's slow movement, nothing more. It's in contrast to what was previously believed, namely that the continents have fixed, unmoving positions. It doesn't matter whether they move in a straight line, a curve, or dance a Macarena. If they're moving slowly, they're drifting. The invention of a special form of continental motion, oscillation, that doesn't count as drift, for which there is no independent evidence, is beyond unreasonable.

Quote:
I really don’t see why continents might drift but not oscillate. And (as argued) there is observational and theoretical basis for oscillation. And all natural systems either oscillate in dynamic equilibrium or collapse into (relatively) static equilibrium.


For continental oscillation to have an observational basis, there would have to be some observations that are best explained by the oscillation hypothesis. But there aren't any. The claim that all natural systems either oscillate in dynamic equilibrium or collapse into static equilibrium is simply a wordy way of saying they either oscillate or they don't. That's a tautology, not a theoretical basis for continental oscillation.

Quote:
As argued, continental oscillation is possible. And the assumption of unceasing continental drift (with a gradually cooling Earth) is theoretically more problematic than the assumption that eventually a dynamic equilibrium will be reached. So this is far from a factual error in TUB.


I haven't assumed anything about unceasing, i.e., everlasting continental drift, so if that's problematic, it's someone else's problem. The Earth is gradually cooling, but it hasn't yet cooled to the point where continental drift has ceased, which is why we're still able to measure it and the active volcanic processes that cause it. The claim is not that continental drift will never cease. The claim is that it hasn't yet ceased, so, a fortiori, it didn't cease 75 million years ago. This is an observationally confirmed factual error in the UB.

Moreover, your only argument for the possibility of continental oscillation is the uncontroversial fact that some natural systems dissipate momentum by oscillating. That fact, however, offers no direct support for the further claim that continents do so.

Quote:
Of course space respiration has observational consequences. But we may not connect the dots in a thousand years without revelation.


Does space respiration affect the space within material objects, or only the space between them?

_________________
Todd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:29 pm +0000
Posts: 2444
Not all things that rock back and forth are drifting. A boat that is securely tied up to a dock that rocks back and forth is not drifting anywhere, nobody would use the phrase drifting to describe that situation. The authors are using the word drift in its proper context. That's why its a revelation, its fixing all the little human errors, even the way we use words.

_________________
StrongcharactersRnotderivedfromnotdoingwrongbutratherfrom
actuallydoingrightUnselfishnesisthebadgeofhumangreatnes
Thehighestlevelsofselfrealizationareatainedbyworshipandservice
Thehapyandefectivepersonismotivatednotbyfearofwrongdoingbutby
loveofrightdoing


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:16 pm +0000
Posts: 495
boomshuka wrote:
Not all things that rock back and forth are drifting. A boat that is securely tied up to a dock that rocks back and forth is not drifting anywhere, nobody would use the phrase drifting to describe that situation. The authors are using the word drift in its proper context. That's why its a revelation, its fixing all the little human errors, even the way we use words.


Rocking is a different kind of motion altogether. It's repeated back-and-forth rotation around an axis. Rocking is a form of oscillation, but not all oscillation involves rocking. The tines of a tuning fork oscillate but they don't rock. A boat insecurely tied to a pier could well be described as drifting back and forth with the tides.

The revelators don't get to determine what words mean; usage determines that. The UB doesn't say that continents oscillate or rock. Certainly the revelators could have said these things, but they didn't. What they did say is that continental drift ceased. Bart thinks this statement could still be true if the continents started oscillating 75 million years ago. I've argued that there is no theoretical or observational basis for thinking that continents oscillate, so "continental oscillation" exists only as an exercise of the imagination. In addition, given the actual definitions of the word "drift" and the term "continental drift", oscillation would still qualify as drift. So even if there were such a thing as continental oscillation, which we have no reason to believe, the claim that continental drift has ceased would be false.

The definition of "oscillate" is "move or swing back and forth at a regular speed." The definition of "continental drift" is, as already pointed out, "the very slow movement of the continents on the surface of the Earth." The point is, as long as the continents are slowly moving along the Earth's surface, they're drifting, whether they're moving in a straight line, back and forth, or in a circle.

_________________
Todd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:29 pm +0000
Posts: 2444
Not everything that moves is drifting Ubizmo an oscillation is not a drift. The authors do have the authority to use English words in their proper context :). The word drift is not used to describe all things in motion. Nobody would use the term drifting to describe a boat that rocks back and forth in the same location. At the very least no one would call someone erred if they stated that this boat had not drifted anywhere. The term drift is not applicable to all movements.

_________________
StrongcharactersRnotderivedfromnotdoingwrongbutratherfrom
actuallydoingrightUnselfishnesisthebadgeofhumangreatnes
Thehighestlevelsofselfrealizationareatainedbyworshipandservice
Thehapyandefectivepersonismotivatednotbyfearofwrongdoingbutby
loveofrightdoing


Last edited by boomshuka on Thu Feb 20, 2014 1:32 pm +0000, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 989
ugh, i read up on this awhile back and concluded inconclusively mostly due to measuring the motions depend on a point of reference which is also moving and the accuracy decreases with distance and the absolute motion of north america relative to africa isn't within the GPS precision range of ~1-2mm/40km. But if you tell me which direction you want north america to move i can find a study/model/map that shows it including multiple directions at once...as long as you don't care where the motion is relative to :razz:

Explaining the geodynamic forces behind it is a bit tougher...but it's not terribly incredulous to postulate that the american plates can become stuck and/or lack the momentum required to move up and over the elevated areas of the pacific basin.

But, I had to mention that the UB only says the westward motion of N. and S. America stopped and goes on to mention an eastward motion of north america:

Quote:
61:4.2 10,000,000 years ago began an age of widespread local land deposits on the lowlands of the continents, but most of these sedimentations were later removed. Much of Europe, at this time, was still under water, including parts of England, Belgium, and France, and the Mediterranean Sea covered much of northern Africa. In North America extensive depositions were made at the mountain bases, in lakes, and in the great land basins. These deposits average only about two hundred feet, are more or less colored, and fossils are rare. Two great fresh-water lakes existed in western North America. The Sierras were elevating; Shasta, Hood, and Rainier were beginning their mountain careers. But it was not until the subsequent ice age that North America began its creep toward the Atlantic depression.


Which may imply a current western glacial isostatic rebound. There are a number of major crustal motions mentioned in the papers since 70mya...starting with a continental backthrust, mid-continental upthrusts, numerous orogenies, former land bridge subductions, the formation of the San Andreas fault and this:

Quote:
60:4.1 ....There has been an agelong rhythm associated with this rise and fall of ocean floor and continental land levels. And these same rhythmical crustal movements will continue from this time on throughout the earth’s history but with diminishing frequency and extent.


Any vertical motion on a curved surface will have a horizontal component.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:10 am +0000
Posts: 1945
ubizmo wrote:
Quote:
The fact that there has been more than one supercontinent in the past would demonstrate that supercontinents break apart and continental pieces drift apart to form a supercontinent again, et cetera. That’s what I call continental drift and (obviously) this is basically an oscillation.
It's just no good. It's not about what "you call" continental drift. It's about what the term actually means. The meaning is not obscure. It's slow movement, nothing more. It's in contrast to what was previously believed, namely that the continents have fixed, unmoving positions. It doesn't matter whether they move in a straight line, a curve, or dance a Macarena. If they're moving slowly, they're drifting. The invention of a special form of continental motion, oscillation, that doesn't count as drift, for which there is no independent evidence, is beyond unreasonable. …
The term continental drift doesn’t mean any form of slow movement of the continents. Where did you find that definition? Continental drift refers to the movement of the continents from one supercontinent to their current positions, nothing more. Thus, a (slow) in place continental oscillation would not count as continental drift, period. And indeed the book itself implies that e.g. the motion (creep) of North America toward the Atlantic depression 10 mya (61:4.2) does not count as continental drift, because continental drift stopped 75 mya.

We are discussing whether this statement that continental drift stopped 75 mya is an error. You keep saying that it is a factual error because there is no evidence for any other explanation of current continental motion (including oscillation) than continuing continental drift. But lack of direct evidence is never ground to call any otherwise reasonable alternative theory wrong. According to your reasoning the notion in TUB that God exists would also be a factual error because there is no direct scientific evidence to support it. You must come up with evidence against a theory in order to disprove it. And the currently observed continental motion would perfectly fit in a theory of continental oscillation..


Last edited by Bart on Thu Feb 20, 2014 12:36 pm +0000, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:09 am +0000
Posts: 722
Location: Jacksonville, FL
I believe the revelators are right when they said the continental drift have ceased 75 million years ago. I think the continuing drift that is still being observed until this time is not really a drift anymore but a remnant of the momentum of the drifting continent. As the North and South American continents drifted westward 75 million years ago, they encountered a resistance on their west coasts which caused them to stopped. But because of their momentum, the eastern side continued to move westward which caused the buckling of the land at the west coast as we can see it formed the mountain ranges from Alaska in North America down to the southern tip of South America. The western coast has stopped moving westward but the east coast continued and still continuing moving westward which is also the cause of the continued rising of the mountains in the west. This is also the reason why the west is prone to earthquakes and some active volcanoes, the so called "ring of fire". It is true that the distance between Europe or Africa and the American continents is increasing which I think is where they based their conclusion that the continental drift is continuing but that is not true as per reason above.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:16 pm +0000
Posts: 495
Bart wrote:
The term continental drift doesn’t mean any form of slow movement of the continents. Where did you find that definition?


The Merriam-Webster dictionary. I provided the link. The Oxford Dictionary has http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/continental-drift "the gradual movement of the continents across the earth’s surface through geological time." There are plenty of other definitions available, all essentially similar to these.

Quote:
Continental drift refers to the movement of the continents from one supercontinent to their current positions, nothing more.


Now it's my turn to ask for a source for this definition. Continental drift explains how the continents got from a single supercontinent to their current positions, but it also explains how supercontinents reform. The current position of continents has nothing to do with the definition of continental drift; it's not part of the definition.

Quote:
Thus, a (slow) in place continental oscillation would not count as continental drift, period.


There's no "thus," because your definition is spurious.

Quote:
And indeed the book itself implies that e.g. the motion (creep) of North America toward the Atlantic depression 10 mya (61:4.2) does not count as continental drift, because continental drift stopped 75 mya.


Good catch. The UB manages to commit both an empirical error and a logical inconsistency.

Quote:
We are discussing whether this statement that continental drift stopped 75 mya is an error. You keep saying that it is a factual error because there is no evidence for any other explanation of current continental motion (including oscillation) than continuing continental drift. But lack of direct evidence is never ground to call any otherwise reasonable alternative theory wrong.


Incorrect. The problem here is your attempt to identify a form of continental motion that isn't drift. You have failed to do so. Continental oscillation is itself a contrived phenomenon with no observational or theoretical basis, which therefore has zero explanatory power. But even if there were such a thing, it would involve the slow undirected movement of the continents, which still satisfies the definition of continental drift, just as a boat drifting with the tide is both drifting and oscillating.

Quote:
According to your reasoning the notion in TUB that God exists would also be a factual error because there is no direct scientific evidence to support it. You must come up with evidence against a theory in order to disprove it. And the currently observed continental motion would perfectly fit in a theory of continental oscillation..


I've explained my reasoning multiple times. If you still don't understand it, I can do no more. Your position is based on (a) an invented phenomenon of continental oscillation, for which there is neither observational nor theoretical basis, as I've pointed out repeatedly. You've provided no reason at all to believe that continental plates are the kinds of things that oscillate. Now, to compound your error, you've added an utterly spurious and undocumented definition of "continental drift".

Your argument comes down to:
1. The continents could be oscillating, for all we know.
2. If they're oscillating, they're not drifting.
3. Therefore, the claim that continental drift ceased 75 million years ago is not shown to be false.
4. Therefore it's not an error.

But premise 1 lacks any evidence at all, and there's actual evidence against it, i.e., that continents don't dissipate momentum by oscillating but by deformation and fracture. Premise 2 is false because of the definitions of the terms. Therefore, conclusions 3 and 4 are unsupported, and the direct observational evidence that drift continues today is undefeated. And that's really all anyone can ask to show that the claim in the UB is an error.

_________________
Todd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:10 am +0000
Posts: 1945
ubizmo wrote:
Bart wrote:
The term continental drift doesn’t mean any form of slow movement of the continents. Where did you find that definition?
The Merriam-Webster dictionary. I provided the link. The Oxford Dictionary has http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/continental-drift "the gradual movement of the continents across the earth’s surface through geological time." There are plenty of other definitions available, all essentially similar to these.
Quote:
Continental drift refers to the movement of the continents from one supercontinent to their current positions, nothing more.
Now it's my turn to ask for a source for this definition. Continental drift explains how the continents got from a single supercontinent to their current positions, but it also explains how supercontinents reform. The current position of continents has nothing to do with the definition of continental drift; it's not part of the definition.
Quote:
Thus, a (slow) in place continental oscillation would not count as continental drift, period.
There's no "thus," because your definition is spurious.
No. Your own Oxford Dictionary definition further qualifies continental drift as follows: "It is believed that a single supercontinent called Pangaea broke up to form Gondwana and Laurasia, which further split to form the present-day continents." That’s the concept that is commonly associated with continental drift and that’s what the theory originally proposed in 1912, nothing more. It doesn’t refer to any other continental movement, such as motion in the opposite direction. That is strictly your own interpretation.

ubizmo wrote:
Quote:
And indeed the book itself implies that e.g. the motion (creep) of North America toward the Atlantic depression 10 mya (61:4.2) does not count as continental drift, because continental drift stopped 75 mya.
Good catch. The UB manages to commit both an empirical error and a logical inconsistency.
Obviously not. TUB simply indicates here that the fact that continental drift has stopped doesn’t mean that all continental motion stopped.

ubizmo wrote:
Quote:
We are discussing whether this statement that continental drift stopped 75 mya is an error. You keep saying that it is a factual error because there is no evidence for any other explanation of current continental motion (including oscillation) than continuing continental drift. But lack of direct evidence is never ground to call any otherwise reasonable alternative theory wrong.
Incorrect. The problem here is your attempt to identify a form of continental motion that isn't drift. You have failed to do so. Continental oscillation is itself a contrived phenomenon with no observational or theoretical basis, which therefore has zero explanatory power. But even if there were such a thing, it would involve the slow undirected movement of the continents, which still satisfies the definition of continental drift, just as a boat drifting with the tide is both drifting and oscillating.
Are you saying that lack of evidence is in itself ground to call an otherwise reasonable theory wrong? Then you don’t understand science. And, as argued, your own definition of continental drift is incorrect. And I didn’t try to identify anything, I only proposed a perfectly reasonable theory of continental motion after continental drift stopped.

ubizmo wrote:
Quote:
According to your reasoning the notion in TUB that God exists would also be a factual error because there is no direct scientific evidence to support it. You must come up with evidence against a theory in order to disprove it. And the currently observed continental motion would perfectly fit in a theory of continental oscillation..
I've explained my reasoning multiple times. If you still don't understand it, I can do no more. Your position is based on (a) an invented phenomenon of continental oscillation, for which there is neither observational nor theoretical basis, as I've pointed out repeatedly. You've provided no reason at all to believe that continental plates are the kinds of things that oscillate. Now, to compound your error, you've added an utterly spurious and undocumented definition of "continental drift".

Your argument comes down to:
1. The continents could be oscillating, for all we know.
2. If they're oscillating, they're not drifting.
3. Therefore, the claim that continental drift ceased 75 million years ago is not shown to be false.
4. Therefore it's not an error.

But premise 1 lacks any evidence at all, and there's actual evidence against it, i.e., that continents don't dissipate momentum by oscillating but by deformation and fracture. Premise 2 is false because of the definitions of the terms. Therefore, conclusions 3 and 4 are unsupported, and the direct observational evidence that drift continues today is undefeated. And that's really all anyone can ask to show that the claim in the UB is an error.
Dissipation of continental momentum by deformation and fracture is perfectly compatible with continental oscillation. And (as argued) my definition of continental drift is correct, and (as I've pointed out repeatedly) there is more than enough theoretical basis for continental oscillation, given that continental drift has stopped. Thus my premises and conclusions are correct.

So we’re back at my earlier question, do you think that lack of (direct) evidence is in itself ground to call any theory wrong? (Would you think that lack of scientific evidence of the existence of God proves that TUB is wrong?) The point is that my theory plausibly suggests how the continents can/must still move after continental drift stopped, and there’s simply no way you can prove this theory is wrong.. :)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 154 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group