The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

[Diogenes]

The proposition for debate is that when one takes the tales of Genesis literally, one becomes intellectually disabled, at least temporarily. Taking Genesis literally requires one to reject biology (which includes evolution) and other sciences in favor of 'magic.' Geology and radiometric dating have to be rejected since the Earth formed only about 6000 years ago, during the same week the Earth was made (in a single day).

Much of the debate in the topic of Science and Religion consists of theists who insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis rejecting basic science. Most of the resulting debates are not worth engaging in.

[The Barbarian]

If so, that would mean it moved slower in the past, not faster. Which is worse for your ideas.

Are you saying that plates do not move at all?

I think you're smarter than that.

That is what you are saying if magnetic reversals are on tip of each other.

As that paper shows you've confused global magnetic reversals with the variable particle orientations in those cores due to other factors. Would you like me to explain what the research paper says?

I am not sure what you are talking about here.

I get that. Go back and look at the graph that plots the magnetic orientation of one such bore. Notice that it varies by depth, not time. I'm pretty sure you could realize what that means, if you thought about it.

I'd be willing to look at your numbers. But the evidence shows that magma can be retained in the crust for millions of years without solidifying, so perhaps equilibrium isn't as fast as you assume.

It is part of plate tectonic theory that plates are destroyed in the mantle.

Yes. The Juan de Fuca plate, for example is subducted down below the N. American plate in the Pacific Northwest. That's where the Cascade Mountains come from. Contrary to your assumption, the mantle is not liquid. It's somewhat pliable but it really doesn't flow as you'd expect lava to flow. The reason we see those volcanoes is that the water in the subducted slab is released, rising and liquifying the overlaying mantle, which then rises form volcanoes. This isn't news to gelogists, nor is the long time required to melt subducted crust a mystery.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #0]

In fact, such an impact (evidence for such an impact at the antipode is found in Antarctica) would be likely to cause such a widespread vulcanism. Large impacts on the moon have been shown to cause disruption of the crust on the other side of the moon.

Ok, this seems to be another story someone has made up, because the earth is really big. A simple calculation will show the problem.
Q=mCp T If we take the estimated energy of the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs which is estimated at 300 ZJ. If all that energy was converted into heat. Now, remember you are talking about the heat being transferred to the other side of the earth. The Earth has a mass of 5.9E24 and rock has the average specific heat of 0.88 kj/kgK. 3E23 = 5.9E24 (880 J/kgK) T solving for delta T gives. 6E-5 degree C change of heat energy is added to the earth. That would be about .05 J of heat energy added to every kg of rock.

Now let uss take a look at your hypothesis about the heat from the asteroid impact causing the great melt on the other side of the earth. Again it has been estimated that the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs gave off 300 ZJ which is 3E23 J. Now, what if all this energy was added to your 4 million km3 of basalt, what would be the change in temperature of the basalt? Remember that basalt melts at 984-1260 C and it has a density of 1554 kg/m3. Converting our 4 million km3 to m3 we get 4E15 m3. We now need to calculate the mass of this melt so by multiplying the volum and the density we get 6.22E18 kg. The specific heat of basalt is 603 J/kgC. Now we put our numbers in the heat equations

3E23 J = (6.22E18) ( 603) (T) solving for T we get = 80 degrees. That is right you are a few orders of magnitude from a melt.

So where did the rest of the energy come from? I understand people forget how big the earth is.

It's not lava, but gas release that would cause warming.

So now you are saying that the only thing that was released was gas. Where was that much gas hiding? Gas coming out of a volcano is what causes volcanoes to explode. The more gas the bigger the volcanic explosion. But you said that is not what happen, so that means that the gas would have to be coming out of a huge basaltic flood.

And you have still not answered the question of how 0.03 ppm increase of CO2 a year is a large increase.
You've been misled...

Wu, Y., Chu, D., Tong, J. et al. Nat Commun 12, 2137 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22298-7
Six-fold increase of atmospheric pCO2 during the Permian–Triassic mass extinction

Yes, this is the paper I used to calculate the 0.03 ppm increase per year. In this paper, it says that CO2 rose from 422 to 2500 and it was this increase in 75000 years that caused the extinction. That would be a difference of about 2000 ppm. So 2000 ppm/ 75000 years = 0.03 ppm/year.

So there's no evidence or mechanism for the sudden acceleration of plates, or for subsequent braking. And as you see, the magnetic data from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge clearly shows a very slow movement over millions of years.

If I were you I would not push too hard on this idea of no evidence or mechanism for the sudden acceleration of plates. Because modern plate tectonic theory has the same problem. It is still an open question in plate tectonic theory of how and when did plate tectonics start. Most theories start with a warmer mantle than we have today so the plates can start to subduct. The article from MIT even said that the plates moved faster than they do today. So in both theories, the mantle has to be heated for plate movement to begin. The only difference is that the creationist model has a mechanism and the secular model does not.

Now with regard to the idea that the plates will exist in the plates for millions of years. That is right folks get out your calculators because it is time to make a few calculations.

The equation to calculate time of temperature change is t = Q/P; t = time, Q= heat energy, P is equal to the power in J/s

1st. How large is a tectonic plate? From the sources, I looked a plate has a mass of 4.07E22 kg. This value seems high to me but we will go with this number.

2nd. Calculate the heat energy to melt plate Q; m= 4.07E22, Cp = 603 J/kg K, deltaT = 1200 K melting point; heat of fusion 4.184E5 = 4.64E28 J

3rd. Power in the mantel 4.4E13 watts

4th. t = Q/P ; 4.64E28/4.4E13 watts ; 1.02E15 seconds = 3.3E7 years

So it would take 33 million years to melt the entire plate. But in modern plate tectonic theory, the plates are not dumped into the mantle at one time they move more slowly at 2.5 cm per year.

5th. Mass of plates in the mantle per year. According to the above calculation, it takes 33 million years for the entire plate. 4.07E22/3.3E7 =
1.23/E15 kg/year

6th time to melt yearly mass. Same calculation as above just change mass = 1.40E21 J

7th calculate time 1.40E21/4.4E13 =3.1E7 seconds or about 1 year so it should melt at the same speed it descends.

So again how do plates stay around for millions or even billions of years?

If you can call in a non-scriptural miracle whenever your story runs into an impossibility, any story is equally plausible. This is creative theology, not science.

I do not know about non-scriptural because the Bible does record God saying that He will not destroy the world by water again. But you are correct this is a belief and not science.

F=ma. Which means a comet or asteroid with enough mass and velocity to make the plates move thousands of miles in a year... Pretty close to the sort of thing that produced the moon. And the heat produced from that kind of hit would boil the seas. It would kill off every human on Earth.

Again be careful how much you criticize this idea because it is also proposed as the initiation of plate tectonic theory.

The plates are still subducting. Moreover, the mid-oceanic ridges are places where magma is forced upwards and erupts, forming new crust. Hard to see how one could give rise to the other.

Yes, I am proposing that the events that occurred to create the flood started the movement of the plates. It is really not any different than secular theories. Secular theories theorize that the mantle increase in temperature initiates plate tectonics and then some cataclysmic event happens.

The escape velocity of the solar sytem from Earth is something like 11.2 km/sec. If 5% of the present Earth's mass was accelerated to 11.2 m/sec in a short time, since the "muzzle velocity" would have to be 11.2 km/sec, the heating of the atmosphere from the hot water and friction would be beyond the point where humans would survive.

It would actually be more of a danger of freezing the Earth than heating it. The water under the earth was in a superfluid condition, so as the water expanded as it came out of the earth that expansion would cause the water to decrease in temperature drastically. Just like your refrigerator and freezer work. The compressor compresses the RU123 or whatever gas refrigerators use and then the compressed gas is let to expand and the temperature of the gas decreases. As the supercritical water comes out of the earth and cools quickly it will form very small ice crystals, like the comets are made of.

Wegener produced evidence from mountain ranges, fossils, and so on that showed the movement was a fact. Geologists didn't accept it, primarily because Wegener had no mechanism by which it could happen. Then the mid-oceanic ridges were discovered, and it became clear how they move. I was in high school and and early college when this was made clear, and there was a dramatic change of opinion by almost all geologists. The Way the Earth Works, by Peter J. Wyllie, published in 1976, nicely lays out the revolution, in an clear and accessible way. Worth reading.

No, one said that the plates did not move.

And borehole results are not what you've been told:

The borehole paper is from the asteroid impact. And it does show changes in the magnetic field in the bore hole. So why would there be changes in polarity in a borehole?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #911]

I get that. Go back and look at the graph that plots the magnetic orientation of one such bore. Notice that it varies by depth, not time. I'm pretty sure you could realize what that means, if you thought about it.

Yes, It means exactly what I was saying.

Yes. The Juan de Fuca plate, for example is subducted down below the N. American plate in the Pacific Northwest. That's where the Cascade Mountains come from. Contrary to your assumption, the mantle is not liquid. It's somewhat pliable but it really doesn't flow as you'd expect lava to flow. The reason we see those volcanoes is that the water in the subducted slab is released, rising and liquifying the overlaying mantle, which then rises form volcanoes. This isn't news to gelogists, nor is the long time required to melt subducted crust a mystery.

Yes what you said is correct but convection currents do flow in the mantle.

[The Barbarian]

I get that. Go back and look at the graph that plots the magnetic orientation of one such bore. Notice that it varies by depth, not time. I'm pretty sure you could realize what that means, if you thought about it.

Yes, It means exactly what I was saying.

Notice that these are not caused by reversals in the magnetic field of the Earth. So we can now dispose of that idea. Hence the actual stripes caused by the reversals do indeed show millions of years of movement.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #912]

Ok, this seems to be another story someone has made up, because the earth is really big. A simple calculation will show the problem.
Q=mCp T If we take the estimated energy of the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs which is estimated at 300 ZJ. If all that energy was converted into heat. Now, remember you are talking about the heat being transferred to the other side of the earth. The Earth has a mass of 5.9E24 and rock has the average specific heat of 0.88 kj/kgK. 3E23 = 5.9E24 (880 J/kgK) T solving for delta T gives. 6E-5 degree C change of heat energy is added to the earth. That would be about .05 J of heat energy added to every kg of rock.

You're making the wrong assumption that the heat from the impact (ignoring that not all of the impact energy results in direct heating) is evenly distributed throughout the volume of Earth in an antipode event. That is not how it works and things are far more complicated than that with focusing effects, surface channels and other phenomena. Here is a relatively recent description:

https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/187/1/529/564818

The effects at the antipode are far greater than simply assuming a uniform Earth mass where the heat is evenly distributed ... if that were the case the antipode location would not be any different from any other location far from the impact site.

As for global floods and plate techtonics, the entire Genesis flood myth can be discarded because there is simply no source for enough water on this planet to cover the highest mountains. Walt Brown's hydroplate "theory" is about is ridiculous as Russel Humphreys' planetary magnetic field nonsense ... not quite that crazy, but close. Without invoking miracles, Noah's flood could not have happened during the time humans have existed on Earth so cannot be used to explain any geologic event.

[The Barbarian]

In fact, such an impact (evidence for such an impact at the antipode is found in Antarctica) would be likely to cause such a widespread vulcanism. Large impacts on the moon have been shown to cause disruption of the crust on the other side of the moon.

Ok, this seems to be another story someone has made up, because the earth is really big.

As you see, the effect is very clear on the moon. Erosion is extremely slow there, so it's easy to see how an impact on one side can produce shattering on the other side.

A simple calculation will show the problem.
Q=mCp T

Actually, the force of the impact is transmitted though the planet. It's not the heat.

Now let uss take a look at your hypothesis about the heat from the asteroid impact causing the great melt on the other side of the earth.

You still are confused about this. The mechanical energy of the impact can cause shattering on the other side of the planet with release of lava over wide areas. It's not heat from the impact. Learn about it here:

Geophysical Journal International, Volume 187, Issue 1 October 2011 Pages 529–537
Antipodal focusing of seismic waves due to large meteorite impacts on Earth
Summary
We examine focusing of seismic waves at the antipode of large terrestrial meteorite impacts, using the Chicxulub impact as our case study. Numerical simulations are based on a spectral-element method, representing the impact as a Gaussian force in time and space. Simulating the impact as a point source at the surface of a spherically symmetric earth model results in deceptively large peak displacements at the antipode. Earth’s ellipticity, lateral heterogeneity and a spatially distributed source limit high-frequency waves from constructively interfering at the antipode, thereby reducing peak displacement by a factor of 4. Nevertheless, for plausible impact parameters, we observe peak antipodal displacements of ∼4 m, dynamic stresses in excess of 15 bar, and strains of 2 × 10−5. Although these values are significantly lower than prior estimates, mainly based on a point source in a spherically symmetric earth model, wave interference en route to the antipode induces ‘channels’ of peak stress that are five times greater than in surrounding areas. Underneath the antipode, we observed ‘chimneys’ of peak stress, strain and velocity, with peak values exceeding 50 bar, 10−5 and 0.1 ms−1, respectively. Our results put quantitative constraints on the feasibility of impact-induced antipodal volcanism and seismicity, as well as mantle plume and hotspot formation.

It's not lava, but gas release that would cause warming.

So now you are saying that the only thing that was released was gas.

If I didn't say that, why would you say I did?

Gas coming out of a volcano is what causes volcanoes to explode.

You're still confusing province vulcanism with volcanoes.

The more gas the bigger the volcanic explosion.

For Plinian eruptions. But this isn't about volcanoes, and even then, many of them don't explode.

And you have still not answered the question of how 0.03 ppm increase of CO2 a year is a large increase.

You've been misled...

Wu, Y., Chu, D., Tong, J. et al. Nat Commun 12, 2137 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22298-7
Six-fold increase of atmospheric pCO2 during the Permian–Triassic mass extinction[/quote]

Yes, this is the paper I used to calculate the 0.03 ppm increase per year. In this paper, it says that CO2 rose from 422 to 2500 and it was this increase in 75000 years that caused the extinction. That would be a difference of about 2000 ppm. So 2000 ppm/ 75000 years = 0.03 ppm/year.

And so you think a six-fold increase couldn't happen if it happened over a long time?

So there's no evidence or mechanism for the sudden acceleration of plates, or for subsequent braking. And as you see, the magnetic data from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge clearly shows a very slow movement over millions of years.

If I were you I would not push too hard on this idea of no evidence or mechanism for the sudden acceleration of plates.

Comes down to evidence. And as you know, there is no such evidence.

Because modern plate tectonic theory has the same problem. It is still an open question in plate tectonic theory of how and when did plate tectonics start. Most theories start with a warmer mantle than we have today so the plates can start to subduct. The article from MIT even said that the plates moved faster than they do today. So in both theories, the mantle has to be heated for plate movement to begin.

The only difference is that the scientific model has a mechanism and the creationist doctrine does not:

Thermal history of the Earth and its petrological expression
Earth and Planetary Science Letters 292 (2010) 79–88


"Computer models from Gerya published in Nature in 2015 suggest that the hotter temperatures of early Earth may have made for weaker, more easily broken plates. That heat would have also created a very different mantle environment. “If everything was hotter and weaker in the past, it’s easier to imagine plate tectonics on a smaller, local scale with smaller plates breaking apart, sinking down into the mantle, the process starting and stopping over and over again,” says Jeroen van Hunen, a geophysicist at Durham University in England.

But while this hotter and weaker scenario could have helped initiate the process, strength is required to sustain it, van Hunen says. “One of the things you need for the operation of plate tectonics is strong, rigid plates. When a plate gets pulled into a subduction zone and forms a slab, that slab shouldn’t immediately break off, because that would kill all the downgoing momentum,” he says. So, in geodynamic models, which provide us with insights into which mechanisms are physically feasible, he says, “you have to wait a little while after Earth is formed for the interior to cool down a bit in order to get the right conditions for plate tectonics, not just to start, but to be sustainable.”

Environmental conditions may have been different billions of years ago, but, fortunately for modelers, the laws of physics and thermodynamics haven’t changed. “Physical laws during the Archean were the same as in the present,” Gerya says. “Once we figure out which rules are governing geodynamic evolution, we can play with these rules to better calibrate our intuition about the onset of plate tectonics.”
https://people.earth.yale.edu/sites/def ... berg10.pdf

{Hydroplate beliefs not supported by evidence)
If you can call in a non-scriptural miracle whenever your story runs into an impossibility, any story is equally plausible. This is creative theology, not science.[/quote]

I do not know about non-scriptural because the Bible does record God saying that He will not destroy the world by water again. But you are correct this is a belief and not science.

F=ma. Which means a comet or asteroid with enough mass and velocity to make the plates move thousands of miles in a year... Pretty close to the sort of thing that produced the moon. And the heat produced from that kind of hit would boil the seas. It would kill off every human on Earth.

Again be careful how much you criticize this idea because it is also proposed as the initiation of plate tectonic theory.

Since there were not humans or even eukaryotes there at the time, that's not a concern.

The plates are still subducting. Moreover, the mid-oceanic ridges are places where magma is forced upwards and erupts, forming new crust. Hard to see how one could give rise to the other.

Yes, I am proposing that the events that occurred to create the flood started the movement of the plates.

It's a valid religious belief. But not a scientific idea.

It is really not any different than secular theories.

Other than lacking evidence.

Secular theories theorize that the mantle increase in temperature initiates plate tectonics and then some cataclysmic event happens.

Comes down to evidence. And we have evidence for such events.

The escape velocity of the solar sytem from Earth is something like 11.2 km/sec. If 5% of the present Earth's mass was accelerated to 11.2 m/sec in a short time, since the "muzzle velocity" would have to be 11.2 km/sec, the heating of the atmosphere from the hot water and friction would be beyond the point where humans would survive.

It would actually be more of a danger of freezing the Earth than heating it. The water under the earth was in a superfluid condition, so as the water expanded as it came out of the earth that expansion would cause the water to decrease in temperature drastically.

All that thermal energy doesn't just disappear. It's transferred to the atmosphere. But it's more than just the heat from the temperature of the fluid you suppose existed. When it's accelerated to 11.2 km/sec, friction with the atmosphere produced even more thermal energy which is also shed to the atmosphere. Pretty much what happens to a meteor when it reaches somewhat slower speed in the atmosphere. Only in this case, the mass you suggest is about half the mass of today's oceans.

Just like your refrigerator and freezer work.

Your refrigerator and freezer warm up your house, unless you leave the door open, in which case, it don't change the house temperature much at all. Do you see why? Hint: reach around to the back of your refrigerator and put you hand on the coils. Even in a religious belief, thermodynamics still work the same way

Wegener produced evidence from mountain ranges, fossils, and so on that showed the movement was a fact. Geologists didn't accept it, primarily because Wegener had no mechanism by which it could happen. Then the mid-oceanic ridges were discovered, and it became clear how they move. I was in high school and and early college when this was made clear, and there was a dramatic change of opinion by almost all geologists. The Way the Earth Works, by Peter J. Wyllie, published in 1976, nicely lays out the revolution, in an clear and accessible way. Worth reading.

No, one said that the plates did not move.

Actually, they did. Most geologists, when I was very young, rejected continental drift.

And borehole results are not what you've been told:

The borehole paper is from the asteroid impact. And it does show changes in the magnetic field in the bore hole.

What it doesn't show, is reversal of the Earth's magnetic field.

So why would there be changes in polarity in a borehole?

Assuming a simple North directed core magnetic vector and a remanent magnetization that has the same normal direction as the inducing field, will produce a reduction in the magnitude of the inclination of the observed magnetic vector (Figure 3). A reversed polarity remanence will produce a shift towards steeper magnetic inclination. Therefore differences in susceptibility and remanence should primarily produce a small spread in the observed inclination values (Figure 2b). The presence of reversed polarity remanence will always have the least influence on the inclination of the observed vector for two reasons. First, unless the remanence vector is very strong and has a direction that is strongly divergent from the IGRF field
direction the resultant vector will always be close to the orientation of the core or (PEF) magnetic field. Second, the presence of reverse polarity remanence and induced field in the same source body will act in opposition to produce a composite reduced magnetic source signal.

BTW, have you decided on a testable definition of "kind?:

[otseng]

Then just use the word hypothesis if that is what you mean.

Proposal and hypothesis can be used interchangeably.

I will put my claims together:

Proposing the existence of additional dimensions and universes is not falsifiable.
Science requires all proposed explanations to be falsifiable.

Additional dimensions and universes cannot be directly measured or quantified.
Science requires empirical evidence to support proposals.

Therefore the proposals of additional dimensions and universes are not scientific.

Do you agree or disagree with this?

I'm no authority, but I'll agree for now since a hypothesis must be falsifiable and since you are using them interchangably, this 'proposal/hypothesis' is therefore not scientific. Where does that get us?

Do you then agree that scientists are proposing non-scientific hypotheses?

I agree that blind faith should not be used as a way to arrive to conclusions and that it is intellectually crippled.

I know of no other kind of faith. Perhaps you are using faith when you should be using another word, like you did for hypothesis above?

Actually, I'm using the scale of faith as an interpretation of Dawkin's scale of belief probabilities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_ ... robability

Faith being the assurance of things hoped for, it is blind by definition.

No, it is not blind by definition. Please cite this definition from any dictionary that faith is always blind.

If we have good reason to believe a claim, faith is not needed.

If this is how you define faith, then I have good reason to believe Jesus rose from the dead, so then I'm not using faith.

However, rational argumentation with evidence is a valid way to arrive at truth and there is nothing wrong with adding faith with that in order to believe it is true.

See the underlined part? Remember my claim?

I think the issue is the difference in how we define faith.

Faith is a requirement in order to believe that something that is potentialy false, but desired, is true. Things are either true or not. Want/desire to believe something is true without knowing it is true, then apply faith. Zero reason is required.

What you are implying is we should only accept something is true only if we can prove it at the 100% confidence level. What if we have a 90% confidence level? Is faith present in such a situation?

Faith should be abhored by all for allowing humans to believe in false things as if they are true. Therefore, faith would be debilitating.

Of course I would disagree, no matter if we accept your definition of faith or my definition.

[The Barbarian]

A hypothesis must be testable, at least in principle. "Proposal" has a much wider range of meanings; many of them do not require testability. For example, a scientist might propose that there is a corresponding universe which we can never observe or access, which is identical to ours, except the Beatles never existed. That's speculation, because it is not testable.

BTW, the film "Yesterday" in which such a speculation forms the plot, is very well worth finding and watching.

[EarthScienceguy]

tp[Replying to DrNoGods in post #915]

You're making the wrong assumption that the heat from the impact (ignoring that not all of the impact energy results in direct heating) is evenly distributed throughout the volume of Earth in an antipode event. That is not how it works and things are far more complicated than that with focusing effects, surface channels and other phenomena. Here is a relatively recent description:

https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/187/1/529/564818

What, this paper is nothing more than a hypothesis based on no observations. It is a case study of what someone is trying to prove, really. A case study of the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs. When was that observed?

In this "case study" they do not mention, as far as I could tell, what type of wave was producing the constructive interference. It could really only be P eaves because surface waves and S waves do not go through liquids. P-waves are usually bent as they go through the inner core so there is some interference but P-waves cause the least damage. And besides is 300 zettajoules of energy is not enough energy to melt 4 million cubic km of basalt.

• Now let uss take a look at your hypothesis about the heat from the asteroid impact causing the great melt on the other side of the earth. Again it has been estimated that the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs gave off 300 ZJ which is 3E23 J. Now, what if all this energy was added to your 4 million km3 of basalt, what would be the change in temperature of the basalt? Remember that basalt melts at 984-1260 C and it has a density of 1554 kg/m3. Converting our 4 million km3 to m3 we get 4E15 m3. We now need to calculate the mass of this melt so by multiplying the volum and the density we get 6.22E18 kg. The specific heat of basalt is 603 J/kgC. Now we put our numbers in the heat equations
  
  3E23 J = (6.22E18) ( 603) (T) solving for T we get = 80 degrees. That is right you are a few orders of magnitude from a melt.

As for global floods and plate techtonics, the entire Genesis flood myth can be discarded because there is simply no source for enough water on this planet to cover the highest mountains. Walt Brown's hydroplate "theory" is about is ridiculous as Russel Humphreys' planetary magnetic field nonsense ... not quite that crazy, but close. Without invoking miracles, Noah's flood could not have happened during the time humans have existed on Earth so cannot be used to explain any geologic event.

You say this but modern plate tectonic theory says the exact same thing catastrophic plate tectonics does that the mantle had to be warmer to initiate plate tectonics.

You can call them nonsense if you wish to be they do make accurate predictions of reality. I am sure that you wish they were nonsense.

[JoeyKnothead]

tp[Replying to DrNoGods in post #915]

You're making the wrong assumption that the heat from the impact (ignoring that not all of the impact energy results in direct heating) is evenly distributed throughout the volume of Earth in an antipode event. That is not how it works and things are far more complicated than that with focusing effects, surface channels and other phenomena. Here is a relatively recent description:

https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/187/1/529/564818

What, this paper is nothing more than a hypothesis based on no observations. It is a case study of what someone is trying to prove, really. A case study of the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs. When was that observed?

After God made a man out of mud and stole one of his ribs to make a woman who talked to a snake then ate from a tree that granted knowledge and they had two or three boys there that somehow were able to propagate the species in spite of known laws of human biology and before some dude was born that could walk on water and who if ya kill him, ya didn't really, cause three days later he's gotta go to the gym.

Ya know, as it was observed.