Wegener and Evidence for Continental Drift

First you say that we shoudl see the same diversiifcation of species as the continents seperate under CPT as under conventional plate tectonics and then you turn around and deny it.Can you make your mind up ?And can you explain why it is wrogn to say that you just keep assertign that the results will be the same when that is in fact precisely what you are doing ? I have been explaining why I expect to see diferences and all you do is assert that there won't be without explanation or it seems a coherrent picture of what you are talking aboutHere's the point that you don't understand.To support Wegener's view the fossil record should show diversification after the point when the continents seperated. Only species able to make it across the growing gap can be found on both sides.But in CPT the fossil record should reflect the pre-Flood state and therefore there should be no diversification until the post-FLood period.Obviously the actual configuration and the pssiblity of longer routes around the gap can be considered but the essence really is that simple.

What would I expect to be different in the fossil record ? Well given conventional geology I would expect to see a diversification as the continents drifted apart. Obviously you agree that CPT does not allow time for evolutionary diversification so it seems that you should agree that CPT should not show that at all.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 06-04-2003]

TC
I'm having trouble following where this all is.Is this correct:
!)You're saying that CPT as a geological theory is not very far advanced so it can't be expected to "compete" with modern geology.2)You're also saying, it seems, that it predicts all exactly the same things as modern geology.3) and finally you're saying you think CPT will be the answer when more research and discoveries are made.Is there anything I'm missing?

quote:

---

--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.

---

Wrong. By omission, but still wrong. There was plenty of other geological evidence that there was no biblical flood. Numerous geologists had disavowed the flood long before Wegener. Wegener himself was not concerned with a flood, so all he was trying to show was the fact of continental drift. To say that his evidence does not rule out a flood is deceiving.

quote:

---

--vague and alluring evidence, I think the venusian evidence is qualifies there.

---

Sorry, TC, but this is not even good speculation. Please point out the subduction zones and divergent plate boundaries on Venus.

quote:

---

I also think that all of that which Wegener has qualifies as my vague and alluring evidence.

---

Nonsense. There is no evidence of the rate of tectonism in Wegener's evidence. There is also evidence preexisting Wegener that denies CPT, which you speciously ignore.

quote:

---

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.

---

And it, too, denies any diagnostic evidence for CPT.

quote:

---

I wouldn't have had to deal with plenty of the current paradigms of CPT if we were living in Wegener's day.

---

But you would have to worry about other lines of evidence, like the rate of cooling of plutons and the relative ages of intrusive rocks that already had convinced geologists of an old earth. Wegener also had the principle of uniformitarianism which is a source of evidence against CPT. You statement is simple-minded and ignores surrounding data.

quote:

---

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.

---

Yes, no mechanism, no evidence for it, and its violation of various geological principles doesn't bode well for CPT.

quote:

---

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

​

--Why not? They're both localized sedimentation.

---

Nope.

quote:

---

Wrong. By omission, but still wrong. There was plenty of other geological evidence that there was no biblical flood. Numerous geologists had disavowed the flood long before Wegener. Wegener himself was not concerned with a flood, so all he was trying to show was the fact of continental drift. To say that his evidence does not rule out a flood is deceiving.

---

--Examples? Make sure you have a sufficiently dated reference.-------------------

quote:

---

Sorry, TC, but this is not even good speculation. Please point out the subduction zones and divergent plate boundaries on Venus.

---

--Well all we have are remnants of what once was tectonism on Venus. See my quote from my paper in my post #84.

quote:

---

Nonsense. There is no evidence of the rate of tectonism in Wegener's evidence.

---

--Thats why it was vague and alluring.. if it was evidence for the rapidity of tectonism, it wouldn't be vague and alluring.

quote:

---

And it, too, denies any diagnostic evidence for CPT.

---

--lol, just as I predicted.

quote:

---

But you would have to worry about other lines of evidence, like the rate of cooling of plutons and the relative ages of intrusive rocks that already had convinced geologists of an old earth.

---

--Thats not much compared to what is thrown at us in modern times.

quote:

---

Wegener also had the principle of uniformitarianism which is a source of evidence against CPT.

---

--A geologic principle is a source of evidence?

quote:

---

You statement is simple-minded and ignores surrounding data.

---

--My statement is simple-minded, what are you talking about? The only thing required for my statment to be completely accurate is to show that there has been a large amount of advancement in our understanding of geology in the past 70 years.

quote:

---

Yes, no mechanism, no evidence for it

---

--No, that there would be no evidence for it would not be why there wouldn't be a mechanism...

quote:

---

and its violation of various geological principles doesn't bode well for CPT.

---

--Yeah, I guess if it even hints at a violation of the uniformitarian principle it must be considered wrong! After all, this is why the global resurfacing of Venus wasn't looked at to highly of when it was first conceived.------------------

quote:

---

quote:

---

I don't think "ice rafted" and "authigenic" are supposed to go that close together.
--Why not? They're both localized sedimentation.

---

Nope.

---

--No? They arent localized? What have you been reading. ice rafted sediments are most definitely local because the only place those sediments are going to be dropped off is right under it as it migrates about the ocean until it completely melts. Not only that but it generally only takes place at high latitudes.--Authigenic sedimentation in the deep sea is majorly dominated by hydrothermal sediments and manganese nodules, at least if mind serves me right.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-05-2003]

quote:

---

!)You're saying that CPT as a geological theory is not very far advanced so it can't be expected to "compete" with modern geology.

---

--Basically, yes.

quote:

---

2)You're also saying, it seems, that it predicts all exactly the same things as modern geology.

---

--No, not really.

quote:

---

3) and finally you're saying you think CPT will be the answer when more research and discoveries are made.

---

--Not really. I really don't know whether CPT will be the answer, even with more research. But I know that further research (well, a lot of further research) will reveal its veracity. Personally, I think that while it is very promising to see it as a plausible alternative to mainstream geology, I suspect it will not prevail and I will eventually become a Old Earther. But hey, why just convert now when I can be harrassed, badgered, made fun of, and used as an impecable exmample of a dillusional backdrop to the advancement of science just for my mere interest in delving further than anyone else ever has into these issues!? Fun fun, wouldn't you say! Why would I ever want to miss out on all of that great stuff... :\

quote:

---

Is there anything I'm missing?

---

--From the looks of it, I don't think so. PaulK seems to be a different story though.-------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-05-2003][This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-05-2003]

Percy, I have your reference, but I cannot find your quotes in the pages you say they are on. What edition do you have, mine is 7th.------------------

Since you don't think it predicts the exact same things as modern geology perhaps you can make clearer to me what the differences are. This is how different hypothoses in science are sorted out. The proponents of each are forced to think of what different consequences their idea would have and then they can be tested. It is fun to deliberatly adopt a postion just to get an argument going.However, if you are a Christian you should read material by Christians and perhaps "converse" with someone like TruthLover here.I have had very large concerns expressed to me by Christians over the damage that the literalists do. When they hold on to untenable positions for reasons that are obviously (to many, many people) absurd the is some chance that this will cause, unfairly, all Christians to be tared with the same brush.There are also individuals who, unlike Truthlover, don't manage to make the transition from fundamentalist to a more rational type or Christian. Instead they lose their faith altogether. I may not think this is any great loss. But I would think you would.

The problem is not that anyone is trying to use you as an example.What we are trying to do is1) get you to answer the point this topic was originally started to deal with.and2) support some of the other claims that you have made in the course of this threadIn response we get a lot of evasion and unsupported assertions - some of which are then denied, sometimess even in the same post.You may be setting yourself up as an example of the dishonesty and evasiveness of YECs. But it is all your own doing.For example insisted that it was ridiculous to say that Wegenr's evidence did not support conventional plate tectonics over CPT - and denied ever having said it. And in the next SENTENCE insisted that the evidence available to Wegener did not differntiate between the two !
Is it your position that I somehow MADE you say that ? That I somehow forced you into self contradiction ?Your problem on this thread is not the actions of others - it is your own.

quote:

---

--Authigenic sedimentation in the deep sea is majorly dominated by hydrothermal sediments and manganese nodules, at least if mind serves me right.

---

It doesn't. In fact, the term 'authigenic sedimentation' doesn't make much sense, either.

quote:

---

Wrong. By omission, but still wrong. There was plenty of other geological evidence that there was no biblical flood. Numerous geologists had disavowed the flood long before Wegener. Wegener himself was not concerned with a flood, so all he was trying to show was the fact of continental drift. To say that his evidence does not rule out a flood is deceiving.

​

--Examples? Make sure you have a sufficiently dated reference.

---

How about Louis Aggassiz (1807-1873)Louis Agassiz"Agassiz's works on living and fossil fish and on glaciers have remained classics. His work on glaciers revolutionized geology, and drove another nail in the coffin of the Biblical Flood as a serious scientific hypothesis. He trained and influenced a generation of American zoologists and paleontologists, including Alpheus Hyatt, William Healey Dall, David Starr Jordan, Nathaniel Shaler, and Edward S. Morse. He left a mark on the development and the practice of American science, and brought science to "the man in the street" as no one else had before. People from all over the world read his books, sent him specimens, and asked his advice. By the time of his death, on December 14, 1873, he was publicly recognized as America's leading scientist."