badp
New member
I said observed mechanism. Not some convenient magic trick.
Challenge to plate tectonics: Spreading-center intersection?
- Thread starter Stripe
- Start date
I said observed mechanism. Not some convenient magic trick.
badp
New member
Nice try, buddy, but that video is about plumes, not plume-induced subduction. Plumes aren't the mechanism. Subduction is the mechanism.
How the shell of ancient Earth cracked, giving rise to moving continents: http://news.sciencemag.org/earth/20...t-earth-cracked-giving-rise-moving-continents
"...mantle plumes can give birth to subduction zones, where one piece of Earth’s rigid outer layer—or lithosphere—rides over another, pushing it into the mantle. Today, the pull of sinking slabs at subduction zones provides much of the driving force behind plate tectonics."
See also: Plate tectonics on the Earth triggered by plume-induced subduction initiation
badp
New member
You obviously missed the keyword: observed.
Nothing in any of those links says plume-induced subduction has been observed.
It's speculation to bolster a failed theory, like CD.
You just moved the goal posts. In your first post, you limited your comment to the movement of tectonic plates. In the next post, you changed your focus to "plume-induced subduction." Did you think the rest of us wouldn't notice?
The plates obviously move. There is no question about that. The question is why.
badp
New member
The question is why, and plumes don't explain how the plates move. Let me break it down for you.
Plume - indirectly observed
Plume-induced subduction - not observed
Therefore, you can't claim the plume as the mechanism when plume-induced subduction has not been observed.
Okay, so the plates move, but you reject the mainstream scientific explanation for why they move because you somehow know better. What, then, is your explanation?
badp
New member
Nice! Instead of admitting you were wrong, you play the, "Well it's the best theory we have!" card.
I don't really care why the plates move. I do care that speculation based on indirect observations gets passed off as "science" while so-called lovers of "science" and "reason" blindly accept it.
Plate tectonics isn't based on empirical evidence. It's a failed theory. Let it go.
So you don't know why the plates move, but yet you do somehow claim to know that the mainstream scientific explanation for why they move is wrong.
If you don't know how or why the plates move, how do you know that the mainstream scientific explanation for why they move is wrong?
The significance of polar reversal for the theory of plate tectonics alongside ocean floor spreading provides scientists with almost undisputable empirical evidence that plates are in constant movement and that this movement is created by convection cells that exert huge pressures on the lithosphere and at ocean ridges lay down fresh ocean crust which drives the movement of our plates.
-- http://thebritishgeographer.weebly.com/plate-tectonic-theory.html
badp
New member
Let me explain to you how science works and then I'm out.
A theory needs to be supported by evidence.
Plate tectonics lacks evidence.
After many years of searching, no one has found an observable mechanism for plate movement.
Conclusion: plate tectonics is a failed theory.
The blog post you linked to doesn't provide a mechanism and so is irrelevant. It's just more speculation.
In the meantime, I hope you'll educate yourself on the history and practice of science. It's not a popularity content or something people get to vote on.
A theory needs to be supported by evidence.
Plate tectonics lacks evidence.
After many years of searching, no one has found an observable mechanism for plate movement.
Conclusion: plate tectonics is a failed theory.
The blog post you linked to doesn't provide a mechanism and so is irrelevant. It's just more speculation.
In the meantime, I hope you'll educate yourself on the history and practice of science. It's not a popularity content or something people get to vote on.
Greg Jennings
New member
What, pray, do you believe to be responsible for movement of tectonic plates?
Greg Jennings
New member
Never mind. You're silly
He doesn't know. He just knows that no one else knows. And how does he know that no one else knows? He doesn't know.
Greg Jennings
New member
So on a scale of 1 to Stripe, what am I dealing with here?
:chuckle:
My opinion of Stripe is that he knows enough science to know that he is misrepresenting the data in favor of his beliefs.
This is actually my first exchange with "badp," but from what I can tell so far it appears that he doesn't know enough science to know that he is misrepresenting the data in favor of his beliefs.