Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl
All in good time, my dear.
Darn, I step away from my computer for one evening and look what I'm confronted with. Well, once you go monotreme, you never go back, or so they say.
Which is perfectly alright, as long as you do it in private and wash your hands afterward.
What a bunch of blather! You don't even think when you type. Of course atheistic evolutionists would not want anything to do with creation taught in schools. That is why they are fighting those who wish to show that evolution has more holes than swiss cheese out of the schools.
It is interesting that evolution is the only "science" which goes to court to force schools to teach it. Real science wins by persuasion, evolution needs scummy lawyers to force itself upon the populace.
BTW - I am still waiting for proof of macro-evolution from the evolutionist crowd. Have been waiting for over a year for it.
As I have noted, the thick crust is an assumption amongst some researchers and nothing more and absolutely cannot be seen as any sort of an answer to the obvious conclusions to be drawn from the albedo and ir flux data.
One fairly official description of the situation resides here. The main relevant paragraph is (entirely as I have described previously) as follows:
Meanwhile, Mackwell?s rock strength experiments did little to help resolve the controversy, because as he put it the results cannot "distinguish between models in which topography . . . is dynamically supported by upwelling of magma plumes . . . and those in which topography is supported by a thick lithosphere," or between "the effective cessation of tectonic activity about 500 My ago . . . or a global resurfacing event at about the same time" (Mackwell and others 1995, p212, 213). More recently Ellen Stofan and a colleague, Suzanne Smrekar, have suggested that coronae?"circular annuli of fractures and ridges" (see Figure 3)?are formed by magma upwelling, that some may still be active and that they could account for as much as 25% of Venus' heat loss (Smrekar and Stofan 1997, p1289). Even so, the question of whether Venus is geologically dead or simply dormant, or even if the crust is thin or thick, remains to be answered. [Readers interested in the latest information are encouraged to obtain a copy of Venus II: Geology, Geophysics, Atmosphere, and Solar Wind Environment, edited by S. W. Bougher, D. M. Hunten and R. J. Phillips, and published by the University of Arizona Press, November 1997 (ISBN: 0816518300).]
In other words, as I have noted, it is entirely plausible that topography may simply be supported by present subsurface activity, i.e. it may be being thrown up faster or at least as fast as it can melt back down. Again, this is a planet with a surface temperature at which lead melts. I mean, most people think frying eggs on the sidewalk in Austin Texas is a neat trick, but melting lead on the sidewalk is the whole next level of things.
Go ahead and tell us how you are not an atheist.
Evolution is not science, it is pseudo-science, it is pop-science. Anyone who has bothered to read Darwin (and I doubt that many evos have been able to read through his drivel) would see that there is absolutely no science in it, no proof of anything. It is just an incoherent medieval bestiary with a lot of "just so" stories.
Don't go Ga-ga on me! You linked the page, I just quoted it. "Ga" looks like short for "gazillion."
The reference goes on to underscore that this indicates that the lithosphere must be very strong to continue to support the mountains for millions of years, which refutes the second of Brown’s conclusions. We will examine this in more detail shortly, but for now it is important to point out how Brown misuses his own references.Moral: abuse not thy quote sources.
Your source contains a convincing demonstration that the crust can be as little as 15km thick. That helps you a little, but 15km is still 9.3 miles. And would a crust that thin sustain the big craters Venus has that didn't flood with magma?
And then there's this:
The result is that the current atmosphere, while probably billions of years old, did not form until after the surface crust had formed, hence its current high temperature would have been no barrier to the formation of a solid surface.The atmosphere, billions of years old, is younger than that crust, whatever its thickness. Billions of years old is a bit wrong for you, isn't it? I do believe you have been cafeteria shopping your sources, taking only what works for you.
Am I being picky? You don't like the astronomical observations of the 19th century because you think they hurt your case and besides, they're so primitive. But you like the minor irregularities in the observations from the time of Ashurbanipal* because they help your case.
A really useful theory doesn't pick one or two points and try to just do them better, overall picture be damned. You have to fit all the data better, or at least do a better overall job than the currently reigning model.
*Ashurbanipal, King of Assyria (629-626 BC). About halfway back to the 3000 BC Sumerians who made crudely similar if less quantitative observations of Venus. He's far later than even the latest date (circa 1450 BC, but it might have been 200 years earlier) for the explosion of Thera. 1450 is also IIRC the date Velikovsky uses in W.I.C. for his own curious catastrophe.
Well, there you have it ... evos making up facts to suit their case. No one anywhere believes Velikovsky was alive in 1450, therefore he couldn't have had "his own curious catastrophe" then. You slimers make me sick with your lies and distortions.
All: Help! G3K has possessed Gumlegs!
A short while ago, you were claiming that the thick crust was a reason for rejectino the clear implication of the albedo and ir flux data, but now you can see that the thick crust is basically just a theory, and nobody has ever done any real seismic readings on Venus and nobody really knows or can do more than guess how thick the crust is.
Nonetheless, you still assume that some sort of a big picture of data refutes Velikovsky so cleanly that none of these little details really matters.
Why don't you name another part of the "big picture", Reep; tell me which piece of the picture you'd like to see me demolish next.
Try .5 gig-year-old large, non-magma filled craters.
Do you understand that page? I mean, you linked it. Why is the atmosphere "just an assumption?"
A better question. Why is it younger than the crust? Because if it had been there all along, at the modern (or some primordial higher temperature), the crust could not have cooled rapidly enough to solidify even with 4.5 billion years to do in. Too low of a thermal gradient. You said it yourself, "hot enough to melt lead."
You don't have enough time since a few millenia BC. That's what I can't make you see. Your sources kill you, but you only lift the paragraph or two you want.
Why do I get the feeling I'm trying to conduct a debate with a weasel?
First you break into a conversation between myself and another person claiming I'm all wet about the albedo and infrared flux evidence; then when you get shot down in flames on that one, you claim that the albedo and ir evidence has to be tossed because of the thick crust (i.e. you parrot Jim Acker's argument); next when you see that one also get shot down in flames, you come back with more vague big-picture stuff.
The big picture is made up of those kinds of details, Reep.
The age of the atmosphere. The atmosphere itself is definitely there.
No Junior, if you have a refutation for something I say - you look for it in your Ultimate Pile of Garbage (you never seem to be able to find anything there yourself, don't know why you expect others to do so) and post it here. I don't ask you to refute your own arguments, don't ask me to do so. The utter laziness and arrogance of your even trying to do so is unspeakable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.