Talk:Catastrophic plate tectonics

Cool!

Crappy theory, yes, but great idea for an action movie. Quick, someone secure the production rights! --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 19:01, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Can we rearrange the citation a bit? It makes it look like the cite is just the comment on the theory, when in fact the whole description is a quote from that page at TO. human^{be in} 18:45, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

Heating

I've kind of handwaved this one slightly, as going into it might be too much, but I might try to explain it better. It's not the magnets that heat water directly, but radio frequency radiation that can be absorbed in the presence of a magnetic field, which then dissipates as heat. As there is radio-frequency background noise, this effect is happening constantly (barring any saturation effects, but I don't think atoms in the Earth's field are naturally saturated), so in principle you can heat water by dicking about with a magnet but this effect is so small that you need highly specialised and cryo-cooled equipment to do it. The idea that a field as strong as the Earth's putting enough heat into the oceans to produce a measurable temperature change is still completely absurd, however. ^{d hominem} 17:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, its rapid subduction that indirectly heats the water and the upper mantle (due to friction)... §Durzan

Fallacy involved in your debunking...

The first argument used to debunk this theory (magnetic fields vaporizing the oceanic water) is both a "Straw Man Fallacy" (IE. your oversimplifying the theory your trying to refute) and a "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy" (Event A is listed or comes before event B, therefore A caused B). If you pay attention to the summary at the top of the article, it gives no reason to assume that that the rapid change of magnetic fields did in fact cause the oceanic water to boil, as both are presented as effects of the cause (Rapid Subduction), thus making said argument irrelevant to the actual article.

Better and more effective arguments can be made, such as those made in the website linked to by the footnote. ^{— Unsigned, by: Durzan / talk / contribs 17:41, 20 January 2016‎}

This is a really weak article.

This comment has a bunch of scholarly sources to use re:CPT.^[a w] oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 18:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Worthy of an article but almost completely unsourced, suggest rating this 0 and having someone with knowledge of geology rewrite. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

It would make sense, when writing the article, to actually read the full paper on the Institute for Creation Research website[1] rather than trying to debunk a 1-paragraph summary on talk.origins. Certainly the paper says magnetic field reversal is a consequence of all that subduction rather than a cause, and they're seeking to explain the undeniable evidence of repeated reversals of the Earth's magnetic field, not explaining why the oceans boiled. --Annanoon (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)