Evolution/geology

[rheins2000]

PhilVaz:

BTW, I quote and cite Dalrymple directly, I own his book.

That is so wonderful. Great job. By the way, when did I tell you you didnt own his book?

PhilVaz:

Your sites do not count as valid science. This is an especially bad site. It has as much validity (but less humor) as LandoverBaptist.org.

HAHAHA…my sites dont count…well at least your blatant refusal to accept anything contrary to your stubborn position is clear. I have previously stated that I am a student of science, not someone who wont even listen to the other side. You have just lost credibility.

Oh, by the way, while we’re listing bad sites, this is an especially bad site. kli.ac.at/personal/rasskin/rasskin.html
It has as much validity as talkorigins.org

PhilVaz:

Please quote something from the mainstream scientific literature for your position as I have. I won’t accept ChristianAnswers.net, AiG, DrDino, Kolbe Center since I already know how unreliable they are…

Of course you wont…you have already established that.

Lets see…mainstream scientific literature…how about these mainstream authors and scientists:

Charles Dawson, an amateur archaeologist who brought in the first cranial fragments from Piltdown;

Tielhard de Chardin, theologian and scientist who accompanied Dawson and Arthur Smith Woodward (Keeper of Geology at the British Museum [Natural History] in 1912) to Piltdown on expeditions where they discovered the mandible;

W.J. Solass, a professor of geology at Oxford;

Grafton Elliot Smith, who wrote a paper on the find in 1913;

Arthur Conan Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes; and

Martin A.C. Hinton, a curator of zoology at the time of the Piltdown hoax. A trunk with Hinton’s initials on it was found in an attic of London’s Natural History Museum. The trunk contained bones stained and carved in the same way as the Piltdown fossils.

LIKE I SAID BEFORE, MAINSTREAM MEANS NOTHING EXCEPT PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IT WITHOUT EMPIRICAL PROOF ARE IN FOR FAILURE.

 

[rheins2000]

PhilVaz:

BTW, rheins2000 your responses are just classic stuff. I am going to HAVE to add your comments to the end of my Catholic Creationism and Jack Chick Comics, with the proper links to TalkOrigins replies of course.

As are yours, sir. I will do the same for your comments, with the proper links to creationscience.com

PhilVaz:

I especially liked the “lunatic” and “liar” comments. Very very funny. Thank you and good night. :yawn:

I said if your reasoning followed what I gave you, then you sounded like a lunatic…Ill stick by that.

And I offered you 2 options…either it was way over your head(as in you are making gross errors in logic) or you are a liar. One or the other is true. And since I dont know your level of exprerience or your motives, Ill stick by that.

I call a spade a spade. If that hurts your feelings, oh well. But I wont sit back while you write conclusions like, “The Pope has declared the earth 4.5 billion years old” and not say anything. Like I said, if you are writing that, you are either mistaken or a liar.

 

[rheins2000]

Orogeny:

Oh, my. Where to begin.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing after reading this.

Orogeny:

The chemical change that takes place in organic matter as it transitions from organic marsh deposits to coal is a matter of chemistry

Still mad that you were wrong in saying its not physics…couldnt even concede that point, huh…(typical)

Who ever said it wasnt chemistry, too? Did you even read what I wrote?..here Ill type it bigger for you…IT IS BOTH PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY…ALSO GEOLOGY AND BIOLOGY.

Clear enough for you?

YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SAID IT WASNT PHYSICS…AND YOU ARE DEAD WRONG. SORRY.

Orogeny:

Your theory of rapid coal formation has no evidence for it. What model do you have that would generate the heat and pressure necessary to create the vast coal beds found world wide in a one-time event? What are the consequences of that rapid coalification? That’s because there is no evidence that opposes “my” theory

Neither does yours, friend. What models do you have. By the way, models are not fact…I hope you know that. According to your own scientists, youre as in the dark as you say my position is:

"Article by E.C.Jeffrrey, Harvard Univ in the Journal Science"

For over a century and a half a controversy has raged in regard to that all important mineral, coal. On the one hand it has been maintained that its raw materials are the result of transport by water and that consequently coal is essentially of the nature of an aqueous organic sediment. On the other hand, the opinion has been held that coal is in the main the result of vegetable accumulations similar to those in actual circum-polar peat bogs consisting of the subaerial deposits, representing the successive generations of fallen peat plants. The first view of the origin of coal is usually called the allochthonous or transport theory. The second is known as the autochthonous or in-situ hypothesis. European geologists have in the main in recent years held to the latter view and their American colleagues have for the most part followed them in this opinion. It is important to emphasize however that the earlier and even the current views in regard to the origin of coal are for the most part arrived at in complete ignorance of its organization. Except in very recent years figures revealing the organization of coal are conspicuously absent in geological works, even in those which particularly deal with coal. It is apparently not without significance that the French who above all others gave early attention to the actual organization of coal, are supporters of the transport or aquatic hypothesis of the origin of coal. Although new methods and improved old methods now give us real insight into the organization of coal, there is yet unfortunately in general little observable rational improvement in geological theories regarding the formation of coal deposits.

If your response is such a fact, and not theory, then what is this guy talking about?

Thats from your side, not mine.

Orogeny:

What you gave is a quote from a journal (called Journal of Chemical Technology, not Chemtech) written in 1972 that has gained no traction at all.

Typical evolutionist…oh really, it gained no traction in an atheist driven mainstream evolutionary view…wow…didnt expect that. I thought it would be on the front page of the New York Times.

Kind of like Galileo’s views not gaining any traction at all. Nice arguement.

You just let me know when mainstream traction proves anything.

 

[rheins2000]

Orogeny:

If coal (and I believe oil according to the author) can be created in a matter of minutes on a large scale, why are we still mining both?

You cant be serious. Wow. Ummm, maybe because thats where it is. Oh, also, we dont have absolutely catastrophic worldwide floods every week that just deposit coal into our trucks. That was funny. Thanks for the laugh.

Orogeny:

You are claiming that organic material is heavier than sediment? Really?

Yes, really, my theory is plausible, and billions of dead humans, dinosaurs, and animals would be heavier than saturated sediment particles (and would tend to group themselves in nice centralized deposits).

Oh, also, God could probably just make coal for us. But that wont go far with you athiests.

You deny God can just make coal, like he made everything else(in a young earth theory), but you cling like death to your contention that the “Universe” created the “Universe”. HAHA. Yes it created itself. Matter came from nothing. Wheres some lab experiments that have done that?

Can you prove that God didn’t just make the coal himself, at any point in time he wanted to. He created you and your brain, which are a little more complex than coal. No you cant prove that.

Orogeny:

Why are there evaporites? When did they form? Why are they found between some layers of sediments? Why do we find intebedded shales and sandstones?

Um, usually an arguement starts with stating what evaporites prove in your THEORY. Please use evaporites to logicall prove something. I have no problem with evaporites, shale,sandstone, limestone.

Simply stating questions wont get us far. Heres some for you.

Why is there matter? Did matter create matter?

Why is there a universe?

Why are there no trees over 5,000 years old?

Why do you have a conscience?

Orogeny:

What about limestones? How do the fit into your “theory”?

Just fine…and how do they fit in yours…Once again, if you are making a point and providing me with evidence, usually you should say why they fit into your theory, but not mine.

But I guess formation of limestone caves and dissolving rates is what your point is about…if not please let me know.

High rate of solution of limestone in areas have been observed all over. It doesnt take millions of years to form caves in limestone, If you track current solution rates of acid rainwater on limestone deposits, you would find that 100 meter thick slabs can be dissolved away in 2 million years.

%between%

 

[rheins2000]

Orogeny:

Have you ever studied a flood deposit? I mean specifically the sediment left behind by a flood of recent origin (as in the last week or so)?

Have you ever studied the deposits of a world wide flood? Do you even understand the catastrophic nature of 20,000 ft. of water covering the entire earth?

Floods of recent origin translate absolutely zero information to the behavior of a worldwide flood.

You cannot even comprehend what effect a world wide flood would have on the earth.

Orogeny:

And where did all the heat go when the coal was finished?

A better question would be where did heat come from? Answer that and Ill answer yours.

Orogeny:

Why didn’t that immense amount of heat not turn the coal into graphite or diamond?

It did. Its called diamond mines and graphite deposits. Different thermodynamic systems(with extemporaneous variables which would be caused by a never before seen worldwide catastrophie) would produce different results(you do understand that, dont you?)

Orogeny:

Why didn’t it melt the surrounding rock?

Why would it?

 

[rheins2000]

Orogeny:

The only fantasy here is your interpretation of these fossils as being proof of a flood.

Funny, I would contend that fantasy land would start with your matter creating matter. Where does that fit in logically?

Orogeny:

Carbonates are not typically the result of moving water, nor are evaporites…

I wouldnt call a flood that lasted for a year and then took more years to evaporate moving water. Please. So I should just stop here, but Ill explain further.

Even if the flood was exposed to massive turbulence throughout its duration(which is ridiculous) moving water would not matter in the deposition of evaporites or carbonates(Im assuming your talking about carbonate-containing salts.) Simple chemistry would tell you that at the right conditions, right temperatures, and the introduction of certain coumpounds, precipitation of salts, carbonates would occur. Thats just chemistry this time.

Orogeny:

Coal is not the result of moving water nor are eolian deposits.

Once again…not moving…and if you knew anything about hydrostatic pressure and weight, you would not say this.

 

[rheins2000]

Oh, by the way, Here are a few of the many problems to be solved, before sand and water could change itself into living creatures:

1 - Spontaneous generation has been scientifically disproved

2 - Instant success would have to be necessary for the life form to survive

3 - Thousands of essential body parts and thousands more of essential chemical compounds would have to instantly form themselves

4 - Both male and female forms would need to make themselves and be near each other in space and time

5 - Law of mass action would immediately destroy chemical compounds

6 - Water is never enough to produce life chemicals

7 - There is no lab equipment out in nature

8 - Condensation problem: Water must be carefully removed for fats, sugars, and nucleic acids to derive out of protein

9 - Precipitation problem: Enzymes would immediately be destroyed

10 - Most life chemicals not found in watery environment

11 - Lightning bolts only damage and kill and could not be the energy source

12 - Oxygen problem: Life could not originate where there is oxygen

13 - Life could not survive without continual oxygen

14 - Oxidized iron is found in rocks existing where life is said to have originated

15 - Life can not originate without water. But there can be no water without oxygen

16 - A reducing atmosphere (no oxygen) would produce life-killing peroxides

17 - Ultraviolet light in reducing atmosphere would immediately kill life

18 - Without oxygen, there would be no protective ozone layer

19 - Proteins would immediately hydrolyze and destroy themselves

20 - There would not be enough chemicals available to form even the simplest protein

21 - Nitrogen is in most biochemicals, but there is not enough concentrated nitrogen in nature to form life

22 - There is not enough available phosporus in nature either

23 - Scientists have no idea how to make fatty acids or how they could make themselves

24 - The atmosphere throughout the world would have to instantly change from no oxygen to its present oxygen-rich content

25 - Extremely complicated chemical combinations not found in nonliving material exist in living tissue

26 - Residue problem: Since such extremely rich chemical mixtures are found in living things, we should find residues of them in nature, but they do not exist

27 - Accidental formations of amino acids would produce equal amounts of left- and right-handed forms which exist in animal life

28 - Dissolution problem: Even if correct chemicals gather together, the next instant they would spontaneously disintegrate by forming with other chemicals

29 - Immediate, complete duplication and reproduction of DNA, Protein enzymes, fats, cells, etc. would be needed for survival

30 - There is not the remotest possibility life could originate by itself. There is not enough time and space in all the universe and in all eternity to product our present myriad of living species on earth

Good luck with these.

Still think your position is a fact and not just a theory?

 

[zian]

rheins2000:

Ummm, Im pretty sure its not millions, since there are not even millions of creation scientists that have ever been alive…

But since name listing must prove evolution, let me do some…

Dr Steve Austin, Geologist is one, Dr Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist is another, and Dr John D. Morris, Geologist is yet another. They are more familiar with the science and data than myself, and they came to creationism because of the overwhealming scientific evidence for it, because they realized there is no valid science to evolution.

I don’t see where the bio’s indicate that any of these three, especially John D. Morris, were former evolutionists, who “switched sides”. If you have additional documentation, please enlighten me.

 

[zian]

***Oh, by the way, Here are a few of the many problems to be solved, … ***

Again, we are drifting (asymptotically) from the OP with your list. Can we stick to the OP please?

 

[rheins2000]

Orogeny:

Are you copying and pasting this from somewhere? It sure looks familiar. If you are, please give a citation.

Funny again, I was thinking the same thing

Orogeny:

Extinction events are found throughout the fossil record, not just 5,000 years ago. What does that mean for the other (and in some cases MUCH larger) extinction events?.

Well since my theory doesnt have the extinction events yours does…it doesnt say anything about your theory. You just let me know what caused the spike.

Orogeny:

The Green River formation of which you speak is the remains of a series of fresh water lakes. The flora and fauna from those lakes are some of the best preserved fossils in the world. .

Agreed

Orogeny:

The study of those fossils clearly indicate the climate at the time the lakes existed was warmer than it is now. That is correct.

Wow, there you go. Not quite an if then is it?

Wrong again. In order to fit your theory, your scientists have concluded, "Well if these fossils are there, then the climate must have been able to fit them, so, based on the fact that there is no way creationists are right, this must be the answer, because we have no proof that God exists. So then they conclude Wyomings climate was different. What’s there proof?..none…just interpretation of what they found based on their preconceived notions.

Whereas creationists would use that evidence to say that these fossils could and probably were deposited.

YOU CANT PROVE YOUR SIDE, NEITHER CAN I. EXCEPT I AM NOT SO UNTRUTHFUL AS TO CLAIM I CAN. DEAL WITH IT.

Orogeny:

Volcanism has been occurring on earth since it’s formation. Why should it be a surprise to find volcanic rocks interbedded with sedimentary rocks? .

Its not a suprise…it is evidence that each side will use to fit their THEORY…get it yet?

You say it was millions of years of volcanic activity. I say it could have been the “fountains of the deep pouring forth”…and along the techtonic plate boundaries, this would result in the interbedding of volcanic and sedimentary rocks, as well as this fine theory:

and here is your link:
evanwiggs.com/articles/fountain.html
From his article:

1960’s studies showed “magnetic reversals” on the mid ocean ridges that mirrored each other on each side.
“Magnetic reversals” are in truth magnetic intensity variances. Many of the intensity bands are perpendicular to the ridges.

Phase 1: The Rupture Phase

1. Increasing pressure in the subterranean water causes the crust to “balloon” out, stretching critical weak points.
2. The rock shell reaches its breaking point in what is now the mid-Atlantic, but what was then a layer of thinner continent that spanned the Americas and Europe and Africa.
3. A microscopic crack forms and quickly spreads as stress propagation’s cause the crack to spread at about 2 miles per second (nearly the speed of sound in rock) and follows the path of least resistance in a circle around the earth, meeting in a Y in the Indian Ocean about 2 hours later.
4. The “Fountains of the Deep” roar out of the ten mile deep slit in the crust at supersonic speeds, into and above the atmosphere. Some water fragmented into rain droplets and rained on the earth in torrents never seen again. Other water jets above the atmosphere and freezes falling back as frozen ice and mud.

 

[rheins2000]

(continued)

Phase 2: The Flood Phase

1. The force of the water erodes the continental shelf and underlying basalt causing huge tides of muddy sludge, quickly burying millions of plants and animals in huge reefs or shoals.
2. The waters, losing pressure, still surge out the slit for days, inundating the earth and covering up the mountains. The sediments are nearly equal in volume as the water at this time and “liquification” occurs causing a sorting out of the dead animals in layers according to size and mass leaving vast layers we see today.
3. The temperature of the water gushing out, due to the kinetic energy from the compression of the weight of the continents, attains a temperature of about 1000 F. This hot water, less dense than the colder water, rises to the top and evaporates, leaving its heavy mineral content behind. The addition of these minerals supersaturates the water below and the minerals settle out in a pasty layer of salts below several layers of heavier sediment. This formed the huge salt layers and domes today by pluming.
4. As the pressure decreased dissolved CO2 (20% of volcanic gas is CO2, 70% is water) bubbles out combining with Ca ions (about 35% of the eroded sediments was Basalt of which 6% is Ca) precipitating vast sheets of CaCO3 or limestone. Limestone deposits hold more C and Ca than today’s atmosphere, oceans, coal and oil deposits, and living matter combined. The purity of most of the deposits today show they were formed by precipitation not formed by myriad of small shelled animals dying over eons and drifting down to be compacted and cemented together.
5. Most vegetation is uprooted and floated to regions where it accumulated in vast quantities. Later during the continental drift phase this vegetation is rapidly covered and heated and turned to coal and oil.

**Phase 3: The Continental Drift Phase **

1. Rock is elastic when placed under high pressure and can undergo a “phase change” where the crystalline structure “compacts” together and occupies a smaller volume. Conversely when the pressure is released, the “phase change” acts in reverse and the rock expands. This has been seen in rock quarries and mines around the world.
2. The area of the Atlantic was where the rupture occurred first. The continents have eroded wide apart and the underlying basalt undergoes a phase change and expands rapidly several miles high. This ripple effect follows around the earth on the original path moving around the earth in about half a day. The strange fracture zones and magnetic anomalies form.
3. The continents, still with some water between them and the underlying rock, begin to move away from this upthrust by gravity. They accelerate away from the mid oceanic ridge formation, riding on a layer of water acting as a lubricating film.
4. The continents begin to meet resistance of two kinds.

a.) The water film is depleted and the continents ride rock on rock. The massive inertia of the continent causing enormous kinetic energy releases in heat (magma pools) and buckling and thickening of the plate itself.

b.) The American plates move west and the European plates move east and both meet the upsurging mid Pacific ridge.

The Ring of Fire and the deep-sea trenches are formed by this sudden and catastrophic halt causing massive upward and downward buckling. The Indian plate literally slams into the Asian continent forming the Deccan uplift, America’s plates buckle and form the western mountain ranges, huge compressive events everywhere form new mountains and plateaus that rise out of the flood waters. Much of the material is still wet and fold and bend in the patterns we see today in many mountains.

Now, if you can go line for line and disprove empirically, everything he says, then I will recant my position and accept that your THEORY is not a theory anymore, but pure, unchanging, hard fact.

GOOD LUCK.

STILL THINK YOURS IS A F A C T ?

 

[rheins2000]

Orogeny:

That is very strong evidence for an old earth because we can date those volcanic deposits

Still clinging to those dating methods…of which you have to assume about 20 things in order for them to fit your predated ages?

Orogeny:

If you misapply a technique, you will get erroneous data.

Now youre getting it.

Orogeny:

There is no physical (as in physics, your favorite subject ) way for a flood to have caused plate tectonics that would give us the geomorphology of the earth we have today.If there is no evidence for it, I would call it fantasy…

And I would call yours fantasy. I have given you a theory on this. Maybe you havent seen it. But calling it impossible is just stubborn.

Orogeny:

Why don’t you try using some science then instead of fundamentalist propaganda?..

Funny, I recall this.

And I was thinking the same thing

Orogeny:

The things you are claiming as science don’t exist and the things you are dismissing have been very thoroughly studied over the past couple of hundred years by many people who come to the same conclusions. ?..

They dont exist because you dismiss them. And if I didnt believe in God, I would probably cling to evolution until my last breath, too.

Studied over the past 100 years. What do you think creationist scientists do, make food products out of play-doh and play video games.

You are sounding typically ridiculous with this statement.

Orogeny:

So, tell me again, why are your “theories” as valid as those who actually have studied the things you dismiss??..

as valid as what theories…are you calling evolution a theory?

THANK YOU!

and once again an evolutionist claiming that creationist theories arent as a result of study. HAHA, I have given you K40 dissertations using advanced mathematical derivations from creation scientists, and you dont think they study.

Give me a Break!

 

[zian]

rheins2000:

and here is your link:
evanwiggs.com/articles/fountain.html

Your source does not provide any references (not a single one) for any of the contentions that he makes on the web page you have listed. Do you have a site with references that can be reviewed and evaluated?

 

[zian]

STILL THINK YOURS IS A F A C T ?

Your discussion at the evanwiggs site seems to stem from information on the impossibility of plate subduction as determined by Walter Brown. There is a discussion of why this is wrong here.

 

[rheins2000]

Orogeny:

What an interesting (mis)interpretation of what is written. Dr. Dalrymple is laying out the generalized stratigrapic column for the purposes of illustrating his side of the argument. He hasn’t even gotten into the argument at that point in the paper.

Look at the figure reference in his paper. He creates this table before he gives his dating examples. And that is what evolutionists do. If they get figures of age for a fossil that doesnt fit their preconceived notion, they throw it out without thinking twice. AND THIS IS THE TABLE THEY DO IT WITH.

Orogeny:

A claim without support…

Agreed that I didnt give the support, but, rest assured, it is right here:
creationism.org/symposium/symp3no2.htm

Orogeny:

It’s good to see that your point was that radiometric dating methods have been used to measure reliably the ages of rocks, the earth, meteorites and the moon!..

Um that was an evolutionists quote…do you even read my posts…or just pick out word and go on the evolutionary attack?

And, of course evolutionists use dating methods. To deny that, I would have to act like an evolutionist, and just throw things out the window before examinging them.

You just explain how vertical trees, artifacts and fossils have been found spanning between layers that are supposedly millions of years between them like my source shows.

Orogeny:

Yep, your’e right, a couple of crazy creationists.

surrounded by a flock of sheepish evolutionists

That crazy Copernicus, that crazy Galileo, that crazy Newton.

You would have been there right with the people condemning their science too, because you are an evolutionary sheep like they were. They just knew the Earth was the center…why?..because almost every scientist shared that view.

 

[rheins2000]

zian:

Your source does not provide any references (not a single one) for any of the contentions that he makes on the web page you have listed. Do you have a site with references that can be reviewed and evaluated?

References to what…its a theory that explains the facts that everyone already knows…dont you get it?

You want references, here they are…the earth has plates, the ground has fossils, the magnatizm is polarized from South America to Brazil.

YOU DONT GET IT…MY ENTIRE POSITION IS THAT THE 2 SIDES HAVE THEORIES, NOT FACTS, THEORIES TO EXPLAIN THE FACTS.

EVOLUTION IS NOT FACT. IT IS A THEORY

CREATION IS NOT FACT. IT IS A THEORY.

YOUR REFUSAL TO ACCEPT THAT IS WHAT IM ARGUING.

 

[rheins2000]

zian:

Your discussion at the evanwiggs site seems to stem from information on the impossibility of plate subduction as determined by Walter Brown. There is a discussion of why this is wrong here.

WOW YOU REALLY DONT GET IT.

He says the same thing about your source. They are both using evidence to support their position.

YOUR SOURCE IS A THEORY.

MY SOURCE IS A THEORY.

GET OVER IT.

What about the 20 problems I listed about your theory…defend them.

 

[rheins2000]

zian:

Your discussion at the evanwiggs site seems to stem from information on the impossibility of plate subduction as determined by Walter Brown. There is a discussion of why this is wrong here.

FROM YOUR SOURCE:
"Brown makes two major errors at once. First, he uses a model of solid-to-solid friction. But the mantle and plate must be treated as viscous fluids, not as a solid-to-solid system"

Oh really, plate to mantle(solid graphite plates) is viscous fluid interaction. Thats interesting…wheres his proof?

He doesnt give any…he just makes this assumption(which all scientists do…they start out trying to prove their theory, so they make assumptions that benefit them)

If a neutral party with no knowledge of the debate were to come into that arguement, I would think solid shelf plate techtonics would draw them to the solid-to-solid friction side of that one. But, thats my opinion(NOTE I DIDNT SAY FACT)

Here is another example of BOTH scientists making huge assumptions to revers the evidence to their side.

 

[zian]

References to what…its a theory that explains the facts that everyone already knows…dont you get it?

You want references, here they are…the earth has plates, the ground has fossils, the magnatizm is polarized from South America to Brazil.

YOU DONT GET IT…MY ENTIRE POSITION IS THAT THE 2 SIDES HAVE THEORIES, NOT FACTS, THEORIES TO EXPLAIN THE FACTS.

EVOLUTION IS NOT FACT. IT IS A THEORY

CREATION IS NOT FACT. IT IS A THEORY.

YOUR REFUSAL TO ACCEPT THAT IS WHAT IM ARGUING.

No. You made a statement that there were human artifacts inside coal seams. You linked a site that repeated some material from an incorrect calculation done by Walter Brown. I provided you with links to sites that had actual references attached, with scientific journal citations that anyone could go to and evaluate for themselves. I think it is fair for you to do the same.

If you do not have any evidence to present, then please just say so.

This sounds just like the response I got from abcdefg when I asked him to provide evidence of his assertions in several other threads. He did not have any evidence either.

 

[rheins2000]

Another quote from your source: His conclusion Thesis:

"The combination of tomography, double seismic zones, the distribution of tensional & compressional earthquake mechanisms, and the fact that deep focus earthquakes occur only in subduction zones, makes it very difficult to avoid the conclusion that subduction is an observed process."

Well, creationists debate your findings there, Mr. Evolutionist, as my original reference just showed. And dont you just leave them a big gap to do so when you end your article with, “…very difficult to avoid…”

Well at least hes honest in leaving it open.