TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Sat Jan 01, 2022 1:58 pm Otseng, above= “Claiming that the tectonic plates is being moved by solid rock underneath is not science, rather it is an ad hoc explanation.”
That is a misrepresentation of what I said. Tectonic plate movement is because of liquid rock. I said the mantle, which was a mistake. It was the molten rock below the mantle but also I found that the mantle itself slowly acts as liquiescent.
What I’m referring to ad hoc here is the solid mantle is able to move the crustal tectonic plates. Even if the mantle was “ductile” solid rock, what would cause the horizontal forces necessary to move tectonic plates? Note, these plates are not free floating like ships on water. These are continental solid rock that are all locked into place. Compare this to the FM, where the tectonic plates are broken up and are actually floating on water. Horizontal forces to move the plates in the FM are due to water gushing out of the cracks and the incline generated by the formation of the oceanic ridges. In the FM, there is a mechanism for movement. In the SG, it would require much more force to move the tectonic plates. Yet, this force is claimed to come from “convection of heat” within the earth. This is yet another ad hoc explanation.
What makes an explanation ad hoc is if an explanation does not flow out of the model, but is added to hold up a theory. As I mentioned before, once you need to add many ad hoc explanations, one needs to seriously question the model. It comes to the point where if you add enough ad hoc explanations, it becomes unfalsifiable and it can then account for anything and any evidence or argument levied against it will be countered with additional ad hoc explanations.
It is difficult, if not impossible, for people to hold to a theory that is supported by ad hoc explanations to see anything wrong with it. They see it to be the truth since nothing can assail it. As I’ve mentioned, we see this in the doctrine of inerrancy. And likewise, I argue it is also in SG.
The best example of a model that is held up by ad hoc explanations that was hard dislodge is the geocentric model of the universe, which I talked about In post 399. It took a long time for it to be replaced because it was able to explain any motion. But, it did so by adding epicycles. And if you add enough epicycles, you can explain any motion. Here’s a great example of this: