Wegener and Evidence for Continental Drift

In answer to TC's challengeFirstly I strongly suspect that you mean to argue from the people who preceded Wegener - your words give the impression that you have some sort of "secret weapon" and everything I have found points to Wegener having a good deal of evidence. I also point out that such a move would simply further weaken your claimed analogy since you do not include the early geologists who believed in - and eventually abandoned - the idea of the Noachic Flood as a contributor to the Earth's geology.Wegener is credited as the Father of Continental Drift, since he was the first to make a scientific proposal. And the fact is that he - on his own - was more successful gathering evidence than the YEC Flood Geologists all working together seem to have been.That rather puts your claims in perspective.Take for instance this website : http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html'While at Marburg, in the autumn of 1911, Wegener was browsing in the university library when he came across a scientific paper that listed fossils of identical plants and animals found on opposite sides of the Atlantic. Intrigued by this information, Wegener began to look for, and
find, more cases of similar organisms separated by great oceans. Orthodox science at the time explained such cases by postulating that land bridges, now sunken, had once connected far-flung continents. But Wegener noticed the close fit between the coastlines of Africa and South America. Might the similarities among organisms be due, not to land bridges, but to the continents having been joined together at one time? As he later wrote: "A conviction of the fundamental soundness of the idea took root in my mind." 'So it seems that Wegener had significant evidence when he first became convinced of the idea.On that same page it goes on to say that Wegener gathered more evidence (including the stratigraphic comparisons I referred to), and that he presented "extensive evidence from several fields".It is clear that as I claimed that Wegener did indeed have strong evidence. And even if we take the publication of the last edition of his book as the terminus (1929) he gathered it all in less than twenty years (Wegener died in 1830).So are you going to prove that Wegener did not have significant evidence ?-----
Edit: Correct that above to be "Wegener died in 1930" - Adminnemooseus[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-07-2003]

[EDIT] I apologise for the replaced statement since I seem to have made an error. As Admin has poitned out the challenge was :----------------
"Flood geology is not just lacking a mexhanism it is also lacking the evidence which continental drift had at the point Wegener proposed it."
--Open up a new thread, i'd be happy to prove you wrong here.
-----------------Well let us start with your original reference
(Post 20 http://EvC Forum: The Grand Canyon: Canyon Formation and Erosion -->EvC Forum: The Grand Canyon: Canyon Formation and Erosion)--Your fault lies with your conclusions regarding the veracity of flood geology. In analogy, your with that group of people back in
the early century who dismissed continental drift as implausible. We are still in development, and just have a lot of catching up to do.In the light of the evidence that Wegener had collected and in light of the fact that he did it with fewer resources than Flood geologists have then I think it is clear that any analogy has sunk.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 03-09-2003]

Well, since TC is posting again, time for a......BUMP

This does not seem to address the points I raised.Firstly is it not the case that Baumgardner's works makes assumptions which are questionable if not outright false ? Without addressing this it would seem that your response to point 1 is inadequate. Accelerated radioactive decay is an additional hypthesis that is not supported by the available evidence (and also lacks any plausible mechanism).Secondly point 2 requires you to show that the evidence that Wegner had supporting continental drift is no better than that *supporting* Flood geology. Not that the evidence Wegener had is consistent with your views. And, I disagree that evne that is the case - you would need to adequatley explain the deposits dating until after the separation, which means that your ideas would be less plausible at the time (since they introduce additional problems). Now your model has more problems than Wegener's ideas did since it is contrary to much of the evidence of geology rather than simply contradicted by the inaccurate - and largely speculative views at the time.Surely the major problems with "CPT" would include iochron dates which cannot be adequatley explained, the unsupported assumptions needed for the model to work, and the evidence against accelerated radioactive decay if you assume radiogenic heat (for instance the various calibrations of radiocarbon dating all show no sign of such an event within the last 10,000 years) - as well as the complete lack of evidence in the archaeological record for any such event in the last 10,000 years.So what is the positive evidence for flood geology ?

[From Edge's post]

quote:

---

quote:

---

--What evidence was presented up until the time of Wegener which contradicts that given by CPT and YECists 'flood' mechanics? (or have you been watching Hovind tapes?)

---

​

Why does this matter? You could just as easily say the CPT is not contradicted by all the evidence up to Magellan. Why do you have to ignore modern data to make your model believable?

---

I have no idea why you claim that I am concerned about the above matter. SO far as I am concerned it is a diversion brought up by you. I do not even know why you brought it up.The actual issue would seem to be important for reasons stated in my head post. In a comparison with Wegener you cannot claim a lack of time or manpower - YEC has had more time and more manpower than Wegener ever did. If the evidence for Flood Geology is weaker than that Wegener amassed for continental drift it cannot be for those reasons.

Well it seems quite obvious that I never raised the point explicitly, so I really have no idea why you think otherwise. Quite frankly it seems that you are using it so that it is easier to ignore evidnece against your views.As I pointed out in my first post Wegener come across the first evidence in 1911 and died in 1930. That is 19 years, not 30 - and leaves out his other work (Including his wartime service),But your argument here is that since your ideas resemble plate tectonics we should take evidence for that as evidence for your ideas ? Wegener DID have evidence that pointed to continental drift over the prevailing view that continets were static. Since you seem to deny that you have such evidence - all yours is apparently better explained by conventional geology - it seems that my point was quite correct.

Whatever you say the fact remains that the quote does NOT say anything about evidence AGAINST your CPT let alone limit the evidence against that can be considered to that available at the time of Wegener.Here it is again just to prove my point
"Flood geology is not just lacking a mexhanism it is also lacking the evidence which continental drift had at the point Wegener proposed it."I remind you that the Forum rules forbid misrepresentation.What I meant is that the evidence FOR flood geology is weaker than that Wegener had. That is how others interpreted it. I suggest that rather than arguing against your own rather odd interpretation, that you deal with that. Although it would mean producing evidence FOR Flood goelogy which you seem unable or unwilling to do. Instead you seem to be using - to use your phrase - a "petty escape route". And I note that the assertions you made in reply to Percy do NOT deal with evidence for the Flood - which Percy specifically requested or evidencw for Flood geology.Flood geology goes back to George MacReady Price in 1902 - that's more than 100 years. More than the 19 Wegener had - it's ten years before Wegener published. If Price isn't good enough then what about Grant who actually did some research and proposed ecological sorting back in the 40s ? If not Grant what about Morris ? What about the ICR/CHC graduate program ? (Here is what one of them more recently said about the ICR: http:/http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/robertso.htm)And you claim that your CPT explains the same data - but does it ? You haven't really dealt with the fossil record - that was evidence used by Wegener, but it did not indicate that the continents has seperated recently as your view claims. If all or most of the fossils are of life existing before he continents seperated why does it not indicate a more recent seperation ?I also note more distortion of my arguments when you deal with the point that Wegener did have evidence for his view over the conventional view while you do not. All you answer is my point about Wegener - claiming that you never denied it but completely ignoring the context.Given that we have two examples of misrepresentation in this one post and that you do not seem to want to produce any positive evidence for Flood geology it seems best to end it here. I can't see your approach leading anywhere but to more hostility. Please do not post again to this thread unless you wish to switch to a more reasonable mode of discussion.

I've been away for the past week, which is why I missed the revival of this thread.
At this point it is best if I stick with confirming Percy's interpretation as accurate - as I explained back in post 22.

I will add that there is one more thing that needs to be pointed out.The request was SPECIFICALLY for evidence for Flood Geology - evidence that is consistent with both ordinary and catastrophic plate tectonics is clearly not evidence for Flood Geology because it is not evidence for the elements which make CPT a Flood geology.So as this thread stands, TC's argument has the following problems1) It rests on a decidedly odd interpretation of the point in question - and TC has ignored corrections2) Even allowing for that interpretation it still does not meet the challenge for the reason explained above.3) Even then, as I have pointed out earlier, TC has not even got beyond a bare assertion that the evidence Wegener had did not favour conventional plate tectonics over the catatrophic version.All of these are serious problems and I see no reasonable hope that the second can be dealt with, even if the other two can be answered (itself far from certain).

quote:

---

What I meant is that the evidence FOR flood geology is weaker than that Wegener had.

--I don't think so because everything that Wegener had in his day is just fine with flood geology, to come up with just the littlest thing more isn't difficult either. But I thought you were looking for unequivocal evidences?

---

I really don't understand what you are trying to say. The issue is quite simple.
I claim that
1) The evidence that Wegener had for continental drift, at the time he proposed itis greater than2) The evidence for flood geology at the present time.This has been explained more than once (and it should have been clear from post 15)

quote:

---

Flood geology goes back to George MacReady Price in 1902 - that's more than 100 years.More than the 19 Wegener had - it's ten years before Wegener published.

--This isn't a good comparison, it isn't "flood geology vs. plate tectonics" mainstream geology has been in serious development more than 200 years, while we have had a magnitude less than that. 25 years ago we were still playing with the vapor canopy and walt browns hydroplate. To argue CPT vs mainstream PT would be better. I can count how many people have been doing serious work on CPT on my fingers. Besides, Wegener wasn't the first to conjure continental drift.

---

As I pointed out it is explicitly continental drift (NOT Plate tectonics) versus Flood geology - which was effectively founded by Price. That is the subject under discussion. It is widely recognised that Morris took a good deal from Price - and as I pointed out there was work done in between. I do not think that there is an equivalent for continental drift, although it was proposed earlier - and we could say that the basic ideas of flood geology were proposed earlier than Price. And even if we discount Price, there is still Grant who not only did geological research but also proposed an idea which to the best of my knowledge is still used in Flood geology.

quote:

---

And you claim that your CPT explains the same data - but does it ?

--The same data available to Wegener, yes.

---

In the post you were replying to I mentioned an example (the fossil evidence) - which you have deleted without answering. Since I have serious doubts about that piece of evidence which you have not addressed then I cannot accept your unsupported assertion, unless and until you produce a satisfactory response on that issue.

Look it is a fact that corrections were made (post 11 post 22 post 30, post 33), and that you persisted in your misunderstanding (post 34) I would add that post 36 contained a further correction and yet you still seem not to understand at post 41. Does that not qualify as ignoring corrections ?Even if you misunderstood the "at the time..." clause I cannot understand how you could miss the point that I explicitly compared evidence FOR continental Drift (NOT Plate Tectonics) with Flood Geology (NOT CPT).It is strange then that post 41 includes a conclusion I consider quite bizarre - that the point at issue was whether Wegener had evidence against flood geology - even though the statement at issue says nothing about evidence against flood geology at all. It really seems strange to issue a challenge on a statement without making reasonably sure of what it says.As for your second point we have yet another odd interpretationI state that you have not shown that the evidence does NOT favour CONVENTIONAL plate tectonics over CPT. Which is at the time of writing still true.You agree that you have asserted that the evidence is compatible with either and deny stating that the evidence supported CPT over plate tectonics. This is especially strange as I explicitly mention you claiming that the evidence was compatible with either to point out that that did not meet the actual challenge.However if the evidence Wegener had supported conventional plate tectonics over CPT then it would be the case that Wegener had more evidence for plate tectonics than for CPT. So it is a point that you would need to address if even your mistaken argument is to be shown correct (even though it quite clearly does not meet the challenge even with such a correction)

I look forward to seeing information on the fossil assemblages.While it the outline of what we would expect from conventional geology is pretty clear (similar fauna, diversifying as the continents seperate) I don't see what CPT would predict. Certainly if we assume that the fossils are more or less in the place where the original animals and plants lived we should expect CPT to predict that the similarities to be independant of the geological age assigned to the rocks - which would make continental drift a non-starter. But if we do not make such an assumption, what is the alternative ? All later fossils have been transported significant distances ? Should that not be apparent from the fossil record ? And even then why could they not be transported from locations that "belong" with the other continent ?And all this is in addition to the general problems the fossil record poses for Flood Geology - it is almost ironic since the existence of fossils is perhaps the most important reason why YECs need Flood Geology in the first place.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I really don't understand what you are trying to say. The issue is quite simple. I claim that
1) The evidence that Wegener had for continental drift, at the time he proposed it

​

is greater than

​

2) The evidence for flood geology at the present time.

​

This has been explained more than once (and it should have been clear from post 15)

---

​

--Again, not a good comparison, continental drift is a component of CPT and CPT is a component of flood geology. On the other hand, continental drift is a component of uniformitarian PT, and PT is a component of mainstream geology. So comparing the evidences for flood geology and for continental drift is going to put you in a ruckus.

---

Actually this is not a problem. The evidence for continental drift - as I have pointed out - does not in itself support Flood Geology. So essentially you are still in the position of denying that Wegener had evidence for continental drift or producing evidence that is FOR Flood Geology. If you want to use CPT rather than looking at issues like sedimentation or fossils (where we should reasonably expect to find evidence that a global Flood produced a large chunk of this material in a period of a year) then you need to produce evidence for CPT over conventional plate tectonics.

quote:

---

--But if you think the evidence Wegener had for continental drift is greater than what we have for CPT, go for it, explain yourself away.

---

Of course as you know you are the one who raised CPT. I explicitly mentioned Flood Geology. And so far it seems to be agreed that I actually said is true - unless you HAVE evidence for Flood Geology ?.

quote:

---

quote:

---

As I pointed out it is explicitly continental drift (NOT Plate tectonics) versus Flood geology -which was effectively founded by Price. That is the subject under discussion.

---

​

--It shouldn't be, I don't know why you brought it up.

---

Why should it not be the subject under discussion ?You challenged me to start a thread to discuss it.I did indeed start this thread to discuss it.So of course it should be the topic of discussion on this thread.There is simply no doubt about it. I cannot see how anyone could honestly suggest otherwise.If you don't want to discuss it then I suggest that you admit I was correct - or at the least that you cannot meet the challenge you issued - and ask for the thread to be closed, since the topic is done with. Other issues may be continued in other threads, of course.

quote:

---

quote:

---

It is widely recognised that Morris took a good deal from Price - and as I pointed out there was work done in between. I do not think that there is an equivalent for continental drift, although it was proposed earlier - and we could say that the basic ideas of flood geology were proposed earlier than Price. And even if we discount Price, there is still Grant who notonly did geological research but also proposed an idea which to the best of my knowledge is still used in Flood geology.

---

​

--Morris doesn't do alot of good science, and thats what I am talking about, it hasent been till recently that many scientists which are YEC's have actually done some good research.

---

Which means that you are discounting Grant - for no reason I can see, as well as the ICR graduate program, and no doubt other creationist geologists such as Steve Austin (who was active for some time under the nome de plume of "Stuart Nevins" before he openly announced that he was a creationist). That's a pretty damning criticism of "Creation Science".

quote:

---

quote:

---

Look it is a fact that corrections were made (post 11 post 22 post 30, post 33), and that you persisted in your misunderstanding (post 34) I would add that post 36 contained a further correction and yet you still seem not to understand at post 41. Does that not qualify as ignoring corrections ?

---

​

--PaulK, by some aspects, I am still confused about you, but I've decided to forget it and just go by whatever new comes up in your and others posts. An example from your post #51:

quote:

---

"I explicitly compared evidence FOR continental Drift (NOT Plate Tectonics) with Flood Geology(NOT CPT)."

---

​

and then you say:

quote:

---

"I state that you have not shown that the evidence does NOT favour CONVENTIONAL plate tectonics over CPT."

---

​

--Damnit, which one is it we are discussing!?

---

Simply reading my statements in context should help you on that one. Recognising that side topics come up in discussion should also help.The first deals with the primary topic of discussion - explaining it yet again.The second deals with a side issue intorduced in post 40. In addition to pointing out that you were not arguing against the statement the challenge is concerned with, the argument that you DID make still rested on an assertion which has yet to be substantiated and which I have reason to doubt (item 3 in post 40).Read post 40 again if you still do not understand. Follow the replies.It should be quite clear.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You agree that you have asserted that the evidence is compatible with either and deny stating that the evidence supported CPT over plate tectonics.

---

​

--The evidence(available to wegener at that time) is compatible with either CPT or conventional continental drift theory/plate tectonics, yes. All of the evidence available today, I say, does not favour CPT over conventional uniformitarian PT though.

​

quote:

---

However if the evidence Wegener had supported conventional plate tectonics over CPT then it would be the case that Wegener had more evidence for plate tectonics than for CPT.

---

--Not if all he had at the time is compatible with current CPT theory.. which it is.

---

All you are doing here is repeating your assertion and then - so far as I can tell - begging the qestion. Perhaps you can tell me why the evidence should be considered equal if it supported one hypothesis over another. Surely we must admit that the hypothesis with greater support has more evidence.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 05-28-2003][This message has been edited by PaulK, 05-28-2003][This message has been edited by PaulK, 05-28-2003]

quote:

---

quote:

---

While it the outline of what we would expect from conventional geology is pretty clear (similar fauna, diversifying as the continents seperate) I don't see what CPT would predict.

---

​

--It would predict...the same thing! What have you been reading on CPT?

---

My understanding was the CPT was a mechanism for Flood Geology and therefore proposed that the vast majority of fossils were formed during a year-long Global Flood.
Are you proposing that all the fossils showing the diversification date to after the Flood ? That would require a significant amount of post-Flood evolution and fossilisation to an extent which I would not expect to be acceptable to a YEC. But if not then how will this diversification be accomplished ?At the very least you need to explain how CPT makes such a prediction instead of just asserting that it does. Start with where you fit pre- and post- flood rocks and fossils, and explain the mechanisms of diversification - becuase at most you have a few thousand years to fit it into so you must have a different explanation than mainstream science. [quote]

quote:

---

Certainly if we assume that the fossils are more or less in the place where the original animals and plants lived we should expect CPT to predict that the similarities to be independant of the geological age assigned to the rocks

​

--Not necessarily, while in the YECist view radioisotopic dating does not indicate ages as given by the analysis from uniformitarian assumptions--it does represent a chronology. So as sediments were layed down, there would be an appearence of age with depth.

---

This does not dispute the point I am making at all.
Since the fossils represent the fauna over a contiguous area (based on the explicit assumption that the fossils have not been moved a significant distance) at a particular time (the inital part of the Flood) then any sorting mechanism is extremely unlikely to sort fossils such that the fossils found on both continents are all found at or before the geological era when the continents were joined. There is simply no factor that should prevent fossils in higher strata from appearing on both continents.Ecological sorting does not apply (even if we assume different ecosystems each side of the continental boundary why should the species found in each not appear in higher strata as well as tose attribute to the tiem when the continents were joined ?)Hydrodynamic sorting obviously cannot make this distinction.Escape behaviour also should not produce a clean split correlating with the view of conventional geology. Surely some animals should go sone way and some the other depending on which side of the bundary they were on when the catastrophe started - not on which strata their fossils will end up in/.And that is all of the sorting mechanisms that I am aware of proposed by Flood geology.If you know of a sorting mechanism which would reasonably produce a pattern consistent with the expectations of conventional geology withour relying on ad hoc assumptions then please produce it.

quote:

---

quote:

---

All later fossils have been transported significant distances ?

---

--No.

---

OK, so you agree with the assumption that the fossils represent the species present at the joined location. So take a species that according to conventional paleontology evolved after there was no reasonable way for the species to migrate between the continents involved. If it is found in strata that YECs attribute to the Flood then according to CPT we could reasonably expect to find such a species on both continents - in direct contradiction to the predictions of conventional geology. Therefore CPT predicts that at least some of these species should be found on both continents and conventional geology says that they shuld not.

TC's assertion is that Wegener's evidence is eqally compatible with CPT.So far it is only an assertion and I haven't seen a lot of reasoning to support it - certainly not on the fossil record. And I can't see why the fossil record should look the same if it was mainly formed in 1 year, rather than over tens of millions of years.