11-12-2006, 10:07 PM
Quote:The evidence has been offered. You haven't addressed it.
Read back through the thread.
Quote:Again, how are these two mutually exclusive? The argument expressly states that the mountains resulted from plates colliding, and *after* they have been formed they stabilize the land mass.
Why is it then that earthquakes and volcanoes most frequently occur along mountain/fault lines. In the U.S., the more active earthquake zones are along the Western mountainous regions, (Yellowstone National Park), Mt. St. Helens, to name a couple. These areas hardly stabilize the land mass. As is glaringly obvious, shifting land masses that cause mountains are by definition, the opposite of stable. Simple, really.
Oh, and just how do mountains "stabilize" a land mass? You may wish to discuss this with the survivors of the Bam earthquake in Iran. Do you think that perhaps Allah has played a cruel joke on you? Do a bit of research on the cause of the last Indonesian tsunami.
Quote:Stop being disingenuous -- I have made it clear that "roots" comes from pegs, and explained why. If you need further clarification, then see Muslimah's post below.
Wrong. Not only is there uplift, but other rock gets pushed down. The articles I've linked, which you still ignore, have expressly addressed this.
I've noticed only that your definitions are customized to suit your needs. You keep insisting that pegs/roots somehow stabilize the earth. It really makes no sense
Quote:Indeed, the site does have religious bias. However, they name their sources and they refer to geology texts in their discussion. So your argument that they are "biased," while true, fails to be a proof of anything. Like I said, provide EVIDENCE that mountainous areas are more unstable than areas that are not mountainous.
I've already posted such link.