Why I Am an Atheist

[1213]

How is gravity ignored?

In mantle convection theory, the idea is that the convection causes mountains to rise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_convection

the theory can’t show real force that would be stronger than for example the weight of Mount Everest.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In mantle convection theory, the idea is that the convection causes mountains to rise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_convection

the theory can’t show real force that would be stronger than for example the weight of Mount Everest.

You're just repeating your claim. Try answering the question instead: how is gravity being ignored?
How is it a problem? Show your work.
Additionally, how have mainsteam physicists and geologists missed this, while you, random internet theist, figured it out, apparantly?

 

[1213]

You're just repeating your claim. Try answering the question instead: how is gravity being ignored?

I think I just did that. Sorry, if you don’t’ understand the meaning of the answer, I don’t know how to help you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think I just did that. Sorry, if you don’t’ understand the meaning of the answer, I don’t know how to help you.

You didn't explain anything, you just piled on claims.

An actual explanation should consist of pointing out the specific flaw in current models of mountain formation.
You'ld have to demonstrate how gravity apparantly makes those models impossible.

You're not providing such explanation. You're just claiming that the models are flawed and that gravity should be taken into account (and haven't shown that it currently is NOT taken into account).
So I'ld expect your explanation to also include some math which describes the forces at play. It seems to me that you'ld necessarily require such math in order to show how gravity supposedly affects the outcome of such models.

But to be perfectly honest with you, I don't expect actual answers to my question. Because I'm quite confident that you don't have the required knowledge and expertise for such. I'm quite confident that you wouldn't even recognise such math as descriptions of those forces. I'm willing to be proven wrong though.

And to be ultimately honest without, even IF you'ld come up with math - I'ld pass on evaluating it. Because I myself don't have the required knowledge or expertise to evaluate such things.


But, what I feel quite confident of saying however: it seems EXTREMELY unlikely that the actual professional experts working in these fields and who develop such mountain formation models... would fail to take into account something obvious like gravity. I'ld consider it even more unlikely that a random anonymous internet person then "figured it all out" and actually knows better then all those professional experts.

So, yeah.....

As always, I'm willing to be shown wrong, but it seems you have some serious work ahead of you in order to succesfully sway me.

 

[1213]

…
An actual explanation should consist of pointing out the specific flaw in current models of mountain formation…

The specific flaw is that the theory doesn’t give any force that could counter the weight of Mount Everest.

…But, what I feel quite confident of saying however: it seems EXTREMELY unlikely that the actual professional experts working in these fields and who develop such mountain formation models... would fail to take into account something obvious like gravity. ...

It wouldn’t be the first time that scientists have made mistake, or have not noticed everything.

The problem with modern continent theory is that atheistic/antichristian world view requires it. With out that requirement, scientists would be free to make more reasonable explanation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The specific flaw is that the theory doesn’t give any force that could counter the weight of Mount Everest.

Show the math.
Don't you understand that you are just making claims?
You've said this already. What you haven't done, is show that your claim is accurate.

SHOW US how the current model can not account for Mount Everest.
SHOW US how the under the current Mount Everest is "impossible".

Don't just claim it. Demonstrate it.

It wouldn’t be the first time that scientists have made mistake, or have not noticed everything.

If you say so.
But once again: just claiming it, is no't enough.

The problem with modern continent theory is that atheistic/antichristian world view requires it.

There you go. The core of your actual problem. It doesn't have anything to do with the actual science...
ALL it is, is you perceiving certain science to being incompatible with your religious beliefs.

And since you put your faith based beliefs above all else, you are mentally incapable of accepting any science that you perceive as being contradicting to your religious beliefs.

If you would have had actual valid objections to the models you complain about, you would have given those valid reasons already (instead of just claiming it) - and you would have no need to invoke conspiracy-ish nonsense about "antichristian world views"....

ps: you are aware that a LOT of geologists are actually christians, right?

With out that requirement, scientists would be free to make more reasonable explanation.

Any time you wish to actually demonstrate the accuracy of your accusations and claims....................

 

[1213]

Show the math.
Don't you understand that you are just making claims?
You've said this already. What you haven't done, is show that your claim is accurate.

SHOW US how the current model can not account for Mount Everest.
SHOW US how the under the current Mount Everest is "impossible".
...

My claim is that the current theory doesn’t show the force. If you disagree, please show that is the force and what causes it. I think I have no burden of proof in this case, those who have made the theory, have it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My claim is that the current theory doesn’t show the force. If you disagree, please show that is the force and what causes it.

Don't shift the burden of proof and ask me to do your homework.
You are the one here making claims that go against the accepted models by consensus of the actual scientific community.

I think I have no burden of proof in this case, those who have made the theory, have it.

The models have met their burden of proof in the many publications in actual peer reviewed scientific journals.

You are now claiming to know better then them.
Your claim has a burden of proof.


You are free write your own paper and submit it for publication, in which you could point out the problems with the current model + your solutions to it. And if the science is valid, it will be published.

You may repeat your conspiratory-ish accusations at the address of the entire scientific community now, and then use that as an excuse for why no such paper will be written and submitted.
​

 

[sooda]

Gravity is ignored, when people think that the convection could lift mountains.

Mountains grow out of tectonic plate movement.

The Himalayas are still growing because the Indo-Australian plate is still colliding with the Eurasian plate (Convergent plate boundaries), which makes it grow higher.

The global flood is a fiction.. Noah's flood was confined to the Euphrates River Basin which is quite flat descending from 30 feet above sea level to sea level as it headed for the Persian Gulf.

 

[1213]

… The Himalayas are still growing because the Indo-Australian plate is still colliding with the Eurasian plate (Convergent plate boundaries), which makes it grow higher….

Not that I think it matters, I can reveal the real reason for the collision. Gravity tries to make the surface of planet flat. Similarly, as if you have for example relatively fluid concrete, it will flatten, because of gravity. Now, the Mount Everest heavier than flatter areas around it. That means, gravity will try to level it down, which is why there is collision in the edge of the continents.

Mount Everest doesn’t grow. The level of where it is measured is going down, which is why it looks like the mountain is growing. The matter is relative and depends on what is the base point.

Same is in all colliding edges. And if people would understand this, they would also know what and why happens to Americas West coast. But perhaps it is better that people don’t know and understand.

 

[1213]

Don't shift the burden of proof and ask me to do your homework.

You are the one here making claims that go against the accepted models by consensus of the actual scientific community.

I just ask explanation from those who have made the claim. If you don’t have it, and they don’t have it, I have no reason to believe it. Thank you for showing that you don’t have it.

Don't The models have met their burden of proof in the many publications in actual peer reviewed scientific journals.

Quite disappointing, if there is no one who actually thinks critically.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Same is in all colliding edges. And if people would understand this....

"people" as in scientists like geologists and stuff........ because they don't undrestand it, but you do....

, they would also know what and why happens to Americas West coast. But perhaps it is better that people don’t know and understand.

Good grief.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I just ask explanation from those who have made the claim.

I don't think the people who get the credit for developing theories like plate tectonics and how it results in mountain formation, are posting here.

If you don’t have it, and they don’t have it, I have no reason to believe it. Thank you for showing that you don’t have it.

Shifting the burden of proof again.

If you want to learn about present day geological models concerning plate tectonics and mountain formation, go buy a geology book or go ahead and read relevant geology papers.

If however, you wish to claim to know better then actual professional geologists who study this stuff for a living, you'ld better try and support your claim instead of pretending or insinuating that scientific models of geology have been accepted in mainstream science by the entire communisty by consensus without any evidence

Quite disappointing, if there is no one who actually thinks critically.

Says the guy who's making bare assertions and pretending to know better then the entire scientific community.

Critical thinking actually is what suggests to me that I can safely discard your bare assertions without looking into it any further.

Because after all, as the saying goes: what is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[Audie]

In mantle convection theory, the idea is that the convection causes mountains to rise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_convection

the theory can’t show real force that would be stronger than for example the weight of Mount Everest.

I dont suppose you realize that Everest, like
other mountains, actually floats.