Wegener and Evidence for Continental Drift

quote:

---

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.

---

--Then you have a poor understanding. CPT is not a mechanism, thermal runaway of subduction is a mechanism. CPT is merely a part of the framework of catastrophism (as PT is a part of the framework of uniformitarianism). If we are discussing plate tectonics, please leave general 'flood geology' out, it will only confuse you more.

quote:

---

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 ?

---

--No, I am not.

quote:

---

At the very least you need to explain how CPT makes such a prediction instead of just asserting that it does.

---

--Shouldn't this be obvious? As I explained in my last post, all the evidence Wegener only supporting the fact that the continents have diverged from one another, it doesn't say anything about the rate of divergence or anything like that which could differentiate CPT from PT.

quote:

---

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.

---

--Of course ther is. By the time superposing strata were layed down, continents would have already been diverged!

quote:

---

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.

---

--Not if they all died.------------------

quote:

---

I was talking about the Wegener part of the discussion. It is clear that Wegener had several lines of clear evidence for continental drift that could be explained in a paragraph or so. All Percy, I think, wants is to know what your corresponding evidence is.

---

--My evidence to compare with wegener's you mean? Well I'd use the same evidence, jigsaw fit of the continents, similar paleoecologies on the east side of South America/Africa, etc. I explain why wegener's evidence is all ambiguous to the question of PT vs. CPT in my last posts.

quote:

---

It is wrong. You neglect the fact that some 'pre-flud' oceanic crust is now incorporated into the continents. I have seen it in many diverse places. Such as Devonian oceanic crust in Alaska and Oregon.

​

You wrote: "All of the pre-flood oceanic lithosphere has been destroyed ..." The statement is demonstrably incorrect. The amount is not trivial when compared to the amount of information we can glean from it.

---

--Right. I tried to say lithosphere because it isn't the same as oceanic crust. But since oceanic crust is a part of the lithosphere, I would be wrong. That wasn't the intention of my assertion though. I am well aware of the effects of continent to continent collisions.
--It was a quantitative remark, not a qualitative one..

quote:

---

You were talking about how difficult it would be to observe and sample the mid-ocean ridges. This was wrong also.

---

--No, I didn't say anything about the process of sampling, let alone our ability to observe it. See post #74 for more.-------------------

I say:

quote:

---

Unequivocal??

---

You say:"Where did you get this? No one asked for unequivocal evidence. They asked for any evidence."
--Because I know thats what your going to pick right up on and try and make me look like a moron after I present my evidence. I cant tell you how many times you've done it before. But ok, how do you feel about the jigsaw fit of the continents?

quote:

---

Try us. C'mon, TC, we'eve been waiting for over 60 posts! Humor us a bit.

---

--Is that humorous enough?------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-04-2003]

quote:

---

I can see you have your hands full here and I'm sorry I've added to your dilemma. I did want to say that although your lack of evidence and... ummm... understanding is rather frustrating to most of us, I respect your tenacity for having stuck around as long as you have. Kudos!

---

--I think I have more of an understanding than you might think I do on these issues at hand, but thanks anyways.-------------------

quote:

---

The first feature that comes to mind that CPT doesn't account for is the magnetic reversal patterns seen in modern oceanic crust. Plate tectonics explains them perfectly, though.

---

--They don't? Make sure you know what your talking about before you respond. Just don't go running to PaulK and ask for him to help you understand the geodynamics of CPT .

quote:

---

There is no scientific basis for assuming that everything happened faster than what we see today. The only reason is that it had to happen faster to satisfy the Bible's 6000 year date.

---

--Hey, if you have a problem with considering the possibility, thats fine with me. But I have an ancient book that says it happened, I think I'd like to give it the ultimate test.

quote:

---

There is no reason to concoct a theory like CPT unless you want to prove that the flood created the geological features seen today.

---

--No really?

quote:

---

If you ignore Noah's Flood - and the entire Bible in fact - then plate tectonics is a perfect, working theory.

---

--Thats nice. Plate Tectonics is just the currently previaling theory, for good reason because it doesn't have a problem explaining the geologic and tectonic features of the earth. I am interested in finding out if the processes must have been as slow as is assumed.

quote:

---

The interview shows that he didn't even consider that plate tectonics might be valid

---

--From personal conversation, I can pretty damn well sure assure you he is aware of the well foundedness of PT.

quote:

---

And no, geophysics doesn't count. If he really wanted to know about plate tectonics he would have done a degree in geology - but that would have overturned his nice little view of the world.

---

--ROFL! Hm.. is anyone else reading this? Joe Meert you little devil, pretending you know how plate tectonics works! lol. ------------------

"How then has it been measured? You've been given several maps already. "
--All of which I have supplied! You think I don't know whats going on? Read post #74

quote:

---

Why are we talking about 200m?

---

--I dunno, go read some of percy's posts, he brought it up. Have you been following?

quote:

---

Sediments traveled a thousand miles, give or take, and stopped 200m shy of the ridges? And THIS is your evidence?

---

--lol, no. The sediments were talking about are pelagic, not terrigenous.

quote:

---

Your line of demarcation is 200m from the ridge?

---

--I wouldn't think so. But this is what Percy brought up a couple of posts ago and I assumed what he assumed to get that value for a little bit of subsequent analysis. But then in my recent post #74 I explained difficulties with finding such a sedimentary thickness discontinuity.

quote:

---

What are you talking about? The issue you have to deal with is that there is a pretty steady decrease in sediment depth from the continents to the ridges. You seem to be claiming that this is all due to runoff from the continents.

---

--I claimed this???"That is, sediment travelled appr. a thousand miles in 4000 years. Do you have evidence for this rate?"
--No, I never said that."But wait... the sediments just don't get there, period. And the "local palegic sedimentation" is immeasurable. Yet, there is sediment, so what are you talking about?"
--I don't know, I don't have any of this data until you get 5 km away from the ridge! See post #74 for more.------------------

I don't think "ice rafted" and "authigenic" are supposed to go that close together.
Your comments, please, TC, on this abstract (one of perhaps a few hundred similar available on the web): McManus, et al., Earth and Planetary Science Letters
Volume 155, Issues 1-2 , 15 February 1998, Pages 29-43

This seems to be getting beyond either a joke or a reasonable misunderstanding.Indeed I notice two claims which I can only regard as outright lies - the claim that continental drift predicts Flood geology (which you must certainly know to be false) and your assertion that you did not claim that the evidence Wegener had did not support conventional Plate Tectonics over CPT.Although you call this claim "ridiculous", deny making it and state that my argument is "false" you go on to explicitly assert the very same thing.

quote:

---

All the evidence wegener had for conventional plate tectonics was merely evidence for the idea of 'continental drift' and is so ambiguous that it could not independently differentiate between any CPT or PT theory.

---

Well which is it ? Something so ridiculous that you would never say it OR exactly what you HAVE been saying and STILL say ?You can't have it both ways.As to the other sssertiosn. This thread WAS specifically started to compare the evidence FOR continental drift available to Wegenr with theat FOR flood geology. If you wish to deny my original statement then you must either produce evidence FOR Flood geology OR deny the Wegener had evidence FOR continental drift. You may, of course, choose to concede instead.I do find it amusing that you again cliam that it would need "superhuman research skills" to find evidnece for CPT. Baumgartner prposed it what ? 15 years ago ? And there still isn't any evidence for it ? So far as I can tell the main obstacle to finding evidence is an insistence on assuming that the results of CPT must look identical to those of conventional Plate tectonics. Perhaps if this insistence were replaced with an attempt to actually understand CPT evidence for or against it would be found. Of course, it may be that you know in advance that the evidence will almost certainly come out against.For instance the usual model of CPT assumes that the configuration discovered by Wegener (perhaps with some small modifications) was the original configuration and it therefore follows that we should not find evidence of prior configurations. This is already known to be false.

quote:

---

There are a couple of ways to answer this. One is simply to ask what could possibly prevent sedimentation from occurring everywhere in the deep ocean, including near the oceanic ridges. The sediment would come from organic remains from the higher layers and from any particulate matter that happens to fall, perhaps blown from the continents.

​

The other way to answer this is to simply provide the information. This is from an elementary geology textbook called The Earth's Dynamic Systems by W. Kenneth Hamblin, page 333:

​

As is predicted by the plate tectonics theory, the youngest sediment is found near the oceanic ridge, where new crust is being created. Away from the ridge, the sediments that lie directly above the basalt become progressively older, with the oldest sediment nearest the continental borders.
Measurements of rates of sedimentation in the open ocean show that between 0.9 and 1,2 cm of red clay and organic ooze accumulates every 1000 years...

​

This tells us that on average there should be around 5 cm of sediment at the 5000-year distance of 200 meters from the ridge, and that the depth of this sediment should decrease as you move toward the ridge, and increase as you move away from the ridge. The sediment becomes linearly deeper with increasing distance from the ridge, until you get near enough a continent for continental runoff to be a factor, at which point sediment depths increase dramatically. This is precisely what PT predicts.

---

--Right, now what you have to do is get the data, I only have data at 5+ km from the ridge.

quote:

---

CPT, on the other hand, predicts that sedimentation depth should increase linearly with distance from the ridge up until the 5000-year distance of about 200 meters, and after that should be a constant depth of about 5 cm, since that's all that has time to accumulate in 5000 years.

---

--Not really, it wouldn't be a constant depth of 5cm, those (lets call them)post-flood sediments would have the same gradual thickening appearence. Also from post #74:

quote:

---

--There are several factors we must consider before assuming that it is that simple. Firstly, all we have being deposited on the relevant ocean floor is pelagic and some air-fall terrigenous sediments. Ice rafting, authigenic sediments are irrelevant because they are highly localized and turbidity/slump sediments just arent going to get there. From the data that I had presented earlier:

​

[Image Snip]

​

[Image Snip]

​

--We can see that sedimentary thickness is highly irregular even on small scales, varying by meters. This will cause problems for any reconstruction of the history of sedimentation/sea-floor spreading rates.

​

--Another difficulty we have is considering the deceleration of CPT and rapid plate divergence--certainly it would not have been immediate. If the deceleration to current velocities was gradual, the sedimentary thickness discontinuity would likely be sloped.

​

--Certainly there must be some form of discontinuity, but not nearly as readily noticable as Percy, et al. have assumed(if it would be noticable at all, given the difficulties I discussed). Either way, I just don't have the data to do such an analysis.

---

quote:

---

This is absolutely *not* what we find.

---

--Maybe not, but then again, maybe we do, I wouldn't predict it, but I havent seen the data either!

quote:

---

Here's more evidence for PT from the same page:

​

Not only do the thickness and age of sediments increase away from the crest of the oceanic ridge, but certain types of sediment also indicate seafloor spreading. For example, plankton thrive in the upwelling, warm, nutrient-rich water of the Pacific equatorial zone. As the creatures die, their tiny skeletons rain down unceasingly to build a layer of soft, white chalk on the sea floor. The chalk can form only in the equatorial belt, as plankton do not flourish in the colder waters of higher latitudes, yet drilling by the Glomar Challenger has shown that the chalk line in the Pacific extends north of today's equator. The only logical conclusion is that the Pacific sea floor has been migrating northward for at least 100 million years.
This northward migration of the chalk line would not have time to happen in the CPT scenario, because there's far, far, far too much chalk to be accounted for by only a year's worth of plankton. Plus the sedimentation is fine grained, which couldn't happen on a sea floor moving at the rate of miles per day, plus the massive heat outflow would have boiled all the plankton, anyway.

---

--Interesting indeed. You may be on to something with this one, I think your argument regarding Guyots is much better, but I would be interested in seeing more data on the distribution of of these sediments.

quote:

---

Another piece of evidence supporting PT is guyots. The sea floor sinks as it moves away from the ridge because as it cools it becomes increasingly dense. Guyots are volcanic islands that are eroded flat on top over time, then as they move further from the ridge and the sea floor on which they stand sinks their tops sink beneath the waves. The CPT scenario provides no time for the erosion of the flat tops on guyots.

---

--Another good one. No, it seems we do not provide enough time for the erosion of guyots. I would think it would all have to be attributed to subsidence or some other erosive force which I do not know of. I have no answer for you here.

quote:

---

How can you deny that sedimentation depth increases with increasing distance from oceanic ridges in the first part of your message, then accept it and claim CPT supports it here.

---

--I never said that there wasn't a sedimentation depth increase with distance from the ridge.

quote:

---

is is just as contradictory as your other nonsense about mid-ocean sediments coming primarily from continents that John picked up on in Message 55.

---

--John didn't know what he was talking about. Nothing I said was nonsense.

quote:

---

Anyway, the Post #53 that you claim is by you is actually by PaulK, but looking over your posts I can see no explanation for how CPT accounts for this.

---

--I meant to say post #54 where I said:

quote:

---

...Sediments would in no way be uniform from CPT and rapid plate divergence. As explained before, the exponential thickening of sediments as you move away from the mid-ocean ridge is because they are originated from continents, unlike with pelatic sedimentary deposition. As the oceanic plates diverged, the distance between the continental crust and the mid-ocean ridge would increase as well as the amount of time available for sediment to pile.

---

quote:

---

Including how fine grain sedimentary structure could have been laid down during a violent catastrophe, how so much biomass could have been living at the same time during a single year

---

--Well was it all living at the same time? All we have are their skeletons.

quote:

---

how the different sedimentary layers could contain different fossil groups

---

--Arent different animals adapted to an almost endless variation in environmental conditions? Those which couldn't handle the environmental stress, died off first and thats where we find their fossils. Unfortunatelly, I don't know alot of zoology and animal behavior so I can only offer this for further research."and how the layers date older the deeper you go?"
--Well, superposing layers are younger right? I am not saying that radioisotopic dating is completely ridiculous, I am saying that it may have just happend more rapidly, therefor, deeper layers will exhibit the appearence of age by such a method of dating.

quote:

---

Elaborate on this? TC, this is just common sense. The effects of a motion carried out very rapidly are far different from the same motion carried out very slowly. Imagine the difference in effect if you extend your fist to someone's nose at the rate of 1 inch/second, and then do it again at the rate of 1000 inches/second. It would be a dramatic difference in outcome, wouldn't it? Well, same for almost anything else. If the sea floor was at one time produced at a rate of miles/day then it should have a very, very different appearance and structure from sea floor produced at a rate of a few yards/century. What kind of differences should we look for, TC?

---

--If your talking about ocean floor topography I wrote an article on this and it explains that it all depends on the rate of cooling. If the rate of cooling were faster(which is postulated) than assumed, there really wouldn't be such a big difference from slow and quick plate divergence.http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/...aft/heattransfer2.htm

quote:

---

You're arguing very strangely. Instead of putting your energy into figuring out what evidence should exist and then seeking it out, you instead put all your energy into denying that any evidence for CPT exists. If there's no evidence for it, TC, then you can't know that it ever happened.

---

--Right, and I don't know that it ever happened. Thats why I havent stopped my research. I'm sorry if I don't have super-human research skills, but duplicating what tens of thousands of scientists have done in the past century under a different framework all by myself isn't the simplest task.

quote:

---

Arguments should be made in the messages themselves, you can cite your article in support if you like. Please describe your Venusian evidence for accelerated decay.

---

--Ok, here you go:From: http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/.../Draft/initiation.htm

quote:

---

Venusian evidence for a universally correlated phenomena as the CPT trigger

 

 
Venus is the most similar to the Earth in size and density than any other object
in the solar system, though its geologic character reveals that they
are quite different.¹  Its surface features also indicate that active
tectonism is no longer occurring.  There are plenty of exhibitions on the
planet which resemble major tectonic features here on earth.  The Venusian
Beta Regio has many of the characteristics of a continental rift.  Aphrodite Terra, with a
length of some 1500 km , is reminiscent of major continental collision zones on
Earth, such as the orogenic belt extending from the Alps to the Himalayas. 
Lakshmi Planum, which is surrounded by linear mountain belts is an elevated
plateau similar to Tibet with a mean elevation of about 4 km.  Further
evidence constraining the origin of the Venusian topography come from gravity
anomalies obtained from tracking Pioneer Venus.

 

Unlike on earth, gravity anomalies correlate with high topography on Venus. Large positive gravity anomalies are directly associated with Beta Regio and eastern Aphrodite Terra.1

 
It theoretically has a metallic core
similar to that of our Earth's, though Venus has no intrinsic global magnetic
field, and if it does, its dipole moment would have to be much less than 10¹⁹
A m².  This is also a further indication that tectonism is a
thing of the past on Venus and that the internal heat required for such a magnetic field
and tectonism is no longer available.  Venus exhibits a notably smooth terrain--64% of the
surface is comprised of plains with differences in elevation less than 2 km. 
Highland vicinities stand as much as 10 km above the plains, though are
only about 5% of the surface.  Lowlands occupy the remaining 31% of the
surface at 2 to 3 km below the plains.

 

 
One very important observational indicator for the geodynamics of Venus comes
from the study of impact cratering on the surface.  Some 840 impact craters
have been identified with diameters ranging from 2 to 280 km.  Unlike from
analysis of Mars and our Moon, older and younger terrains cannot be readily identified.  The significance comes when we infer from crater distributions
that the whole of the surface seems to be of relative uniform age.  Analysis by
Schaber et al[1992] reveal the(uniformitarian) age of about 0.5 0.3 Ga.⁷ 
This is the
same date known as the onset of the flood event from analysis of
radioisotopes and the fossil record⁸.  Schaber hypothesized that a global resurfacing event
occurred at this time and that little surface volcanism has occurred since.

 

 
It can be further inferred that a large portion of the Venusian surface
(~80-90%) was covered by fresh volcanic flows.  Mainstream studies have
also dated this event as occurring through a 10-50 Myr period.
Turcotte & Schubert correctly assert that:

 

...it is well established that the geologic evolution of Venus is far more catastrophic than the Earth's.1

 
This is in agreement with the hypothesis that there has been a pulse of
radiogenic heat in the past, inferentially corresponding with an episode of
catastrophic plate tectonics.  There are still the questions of why the
geologic evolution of Venus, as a result of a pulse of radiogenic heat, was so
much more catastrophic than the earths and why its tectonism has come to a screeching
halt shortly after this global resurfacing event.  I would suggest that the
answer will be found in the modeling of heat transfer and the wide-spread
presence of water as a plate cooling agent.

---

quote:

---

But second of all, I've already given you evidence you should look for if CPT is the true explanation. Most of the seafloor away from continents should have a very shallow sedimentation depth averaging around 5 cm, because most of the sea floor is only 5000 years old.

---

--Huh? Your telling me that 100 km beyond the continental slope there should be 5cm of sediment??? if so, I have completely misunderstood your argument here.

quote:

---

There should be a line of demarkation about 200 meters from all oceanic ridges - closer to the ridge the sedimentation depth should increase linearly

---

--you mean decrease?

quote:

---

and further from the ridge the depth should be constant.

---

--Hm.. I guess that is what you were arguing, but no, it in absolutely no way should be constant, because now your dealing with turbidity currents, slumping, etc. Your outside of the pelagic realm(or at least where pelagic sedimentation would become relevant).

quote:

---

We should not find any radiometrically old layers anywhere, not in the oceans and not on continents.

---

--Sure we would.

quote:

---

Faunal fossil distributions in oceanic sedimentary layers should all reflect life that existed within the last 5000 years, nothing before that.

---

--What??? So when everything died during the catastrophy, their remnants just floated into outer-space?

quote:

---

We should not find progressions of fossils and should not find layer upon layer of fossils reflecting life that not only no longer exists, but doesn't even appear to have any living relative.

---

--Sure we would, things go extinct sometimes.

quote:

---

Guyots should not exist, and submerged volcanic islands should all still have intact cones.

---

--Probably, I don't have an answer for this one yet. Probably the best argument ive seen since I joined this forum.

quote:

---

And last but not least, all life on earth should now be extinct as of about 5000 years ago.

---

--hah, depends on many things. Looks like I've got research to do!-------------------

Well your response here is loaded with errors and it seems that rather than answering my points you are just going to insist that CPT somehow must produce exactly the same results as conventional plate tectonics. Which seems to include tens of milliosn of years of evolution happening during the Flood year - if you really do beleive that then I would appreciate it if you made it explicit and offered an explanation of how it could happen.Let us go with the problems with your reply.1) Although you deny putting the entire post-seperation fossil record into the post-Flood period you do not explain how the populations are supposed to diversify.2) Your "explanation" insists of repeatign the same assertion you are supposed to be defending. Rather than explaining how the evidence can be explained in terms of CPT you merely assert that CPT must produce exactly the same evidence as conventional plate tectonics despite the clear differences between them3) On the agreed assumption that fossils are found in the places where they lived the divergence of the continents cannot explain a divergence in the fossil record. As I pointed out the sortign methods proposed by flood geologists cannot explain this4) The final comment ("unless they all died") makes no sense in the light of the assertion that the diversification of the fossil record does not reflect a post-flood state.
Even if for some reason the members of a particular species were killed and buried on one continent before the other then they should still be found on both continents - with the addiitonal puzzle of explaining why they appear so much earlier.So it appears that we have good reason to think that Wegener's fossil evidence does indeed support conventional plate tectonics over CPT.

quote:

---

I think we can say that Wegener did his homework. He had some hard evidence, that was impossible to refute, but the general science community simply could not accept the idea that terra firma was not so firm. He had plenty of evidence but no mechanism and was roundly criticized. This is similar to the position that cpt supporters find themselves today, except that they have NOT done their homework and, as TC has admitted, they have NO hard evidence. Not even 'vague and alluring' evidence.

---

--vague and alluring evidence, I think the venusian evidence is qualifies there. I also think that all of that which Wegener has qualifies as my vague and alluring evidence. All of the rest of that evidence supporting the motions of the continents is my vague and alluring evidence. Its difficult to come by hard evidence because geophysics has advanced itself so much these days. I wouldn't have had to deal with plenty of the current paradigms of CPT if we were living in Wegener's day. But then again, CPT would never have much of what it has today if we were living in Wegener's day too...such as a mechanism. Ahh yes, the conundrums of Young Earth Geodynamics.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-04-2003]

quote:

---

Which seems to include tens of milliosn of years of evolution happening during the Flood year - if you really do beleive that then I would appreciate it if you made it explicit and offered an explanation of how it could happen.

---

--Tens of millions of years of evolution happening during the flood year?? What are you talking about?

quote:

---

--1) Although you deny putting the entire post-seperation fossil record into the post-Flood period you do not explain how the populations are supposed to diversify.

---

--They didn't diversify/speciate, why would I need them to?

quote:

---

2) Your "explanation" insists of repeatign the same assertion you are supposed to be defending. Rather than explaining how the evidence can be explained in terms of CPT you merely assert that CPT must produce exactly the same evidence as conventional plate tectonics despite the clear differences between them

---

--Wrong, all I am saying is that the evidence Wegener had is just as consistent with CPT as it is with mainstream PT. Since I already explained why, you need to tell me why my explanation doesn't cut it (my explanation was that all Wegener showed was that the continents have split and moved, nothing more which would be needed to differentiate PT from CPT).

quote:

---

3) On the agreed assumption that fossils are found in the places where they lived the divergence of the continents cannot explain a divergence in the fossil record. As I pointed out the sortign methods proposed by flood geologists cannot explain this

---

--What 'divergence in the fossil record' are you talking about?

quote:

---

4) The final comment ("unless they all died") makes no sense in the light of the assertion that the diversification of the fossil record does not reflect a post-flood state.

---

--Can someone please try to translate what PaulK is trying to argue, I am totally confused.

quote:

---

en if for some reason the members of a particular species were killed and buried on one continent before the other then they should still be found on both continents - with the addiitonal puzzle of explaining why they appear so much earlier.

---

--What? No, they all died, they went extinct. thier in the ground, they don't exist anymore in the same biogeography as they were at pre-flood times. That is, if what you mean by "still be found" as still be there today, post-catastrophe.------------------

quote:

---

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.

---

--What would you expect to be different?-------------------

quote:

---

I think his point was that it is still early days for CPT. That you can't expect it to be as advanced as PT when there have been more decades of work done on that.

---

--Yes, this is what I am saying here.

quote:

---

He misses that CPT isn't just less developed or has less evidence, it is demonstartably wrong.

​

And:

​

Yes, he tends to ignore the negative information. Wegener really had no negative evidence against his idea other than the fact that no one could imagine a mechanism.

---

--To quote myself: "Its difficult to come by hard evidence because geophysics has advanced itself so much these days. I wouldn't have had to deal with plenty of the current paradigms of CPT if we were living in Wegener's day. But then again, CPT would never have much of what it has today if we were living in Wegener's day too...such as a mechanism."--I think that I ignore negative evidence is misleading, and even, frustrating. I am sorry if I don't have super-human research skills like everyone else! That there potentially is evidence against CPT doesn't shut the door for its plausibility when no research has been able to be done to combat it! I've said it a million times and I'll say it again--research is to be carried out to verify these claims... If the rest of the geoscience community has done this(which it hasen't, eg. from the grand canyon thread¹) to their satisfaction, good for them. But I am a young mind, bear with me.[1] - Edge stated: "Indeed, there are probably not many people who feel that this is an important field of research"-------------------

quote:

---

I don't think "ice rafted" and "authigenic" are supposed to go that close together.

---

--Why not? They're both localized sedimentation."Your comments, please, TC, on this abstract (one of perhaps a few hundred similar available on the web):"
--Why would there be controversy between my assertion and the article? Certainly ice rafting is going to be more relevant in the north.------------------