Quote:That's so silly. Nowhere in the posted article is there any reference to mountains as roots or pegs. The article refers to a "root model."Really? Because I could have SWORN you insisted mountains "didn't have roots."
Your internet scouring to defend a "mountains as roots" quaranic science position is becoming hysterical.
From your own posts:
Quote:Mountains do not stabilize the earth's crust, they invariably are the result of plate tectonics which is exactly the opposite of a stable crust. Mountains form where two moving plates collide and buckle-- they have no "roots" and are certainly not “pegs” as they are the crushing and upward thrusting of plates...Allah is wrong.
Quote:<b>Mountains do not have roots.</b> As noted previously, mountains are the result of plate tectonics, (uplift), or seismic activity.
Further, “superficial structures”? What does that even mean? What is a “non-superficial structure”?
And now, from the article:
Quote:<b>The most important point is that mountains have buoyant roots that extend downward into the mantle beneath a mountain range, and that the roots are, in general, about 5.6 times deeper than the height of the range.</b> This result reflects the difference between the densities of average crust and mantle.
Why are you backpedalling?