Wegener and Evidence for Continental Drift

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."

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.

---

As I asked, where are the subduction zones and divergent plate boundaries?

quote:

---

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

​

--lol, just as I predicted.

---

What prediction was that?

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.

---

Good then you can tell us where modern science has refuted any of these.

quote:

---

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

​

--A geologic principle is a source of evidence?

---

When a principle is used to interpret data, it effectively produces new data. This is a loose usage, but but useful nontheless. If the new data were incorrect we would find out.

quote:

---

You statement is simple-minded and ignores surrounding data.

​

--My statement is simple-minded, what are you talking about?

---

I am talking about how you ignore geological principles along with historical aspects of geology. You ignore other data such as radiometric dating.

quote:

---

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.

---

No. You have to show that there was no other data than what Wegener himself presented. There was other data available and none of it supported a young earth or a biblical flood.

quote:

---

TC: 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.

​

IR: Please don't insult me TC. I'm a geologist and I do know what I'm talking about.

---

Believe me IR, TC does not have a clue that he is insulting anyone. After all, he knows that all it takes is to read a few geological memoirs and one knows as much as the professionals in the field.

quote:

---

Although the mechanism for magnatic reversals is still not quite understood, we know they do happen and the evidence for them recorded on the sea floor at spreading ridge margins agrees with PT. CPT, however, cannot explain them except by inferring that they happened several hundred times a day, because CPT happened over such a short period of time. As far as I am aware, this is impossible despite how little we know about their mechanism.

---

Quite true. At the rate of oceanic crust formation that TC needs, along with the number of magnetic reversals we know about, it would be virtually impossible to generate any magnetic reversal stripes on the ocean floor. Unless TC has some fantastic cooling rates for the oceanic crust, there would be so much noise from different parts of the crust cooling during different magnetic phases, I imagine that there should be no signal whatever. The thing that makes stripes discernible is that large parts of the oceanic crust cool through the curie point prior to each reversal. But hey, what do geologists know?!

quote:

---

Fast cooling rates have nothing to do with it - there simply isn't enough time for so many reversals to happen. You're talking about one every ten minutes in CPT - and how is TC supposed to explain that?

---

My guess is that he will say that that is how fast they occurred, despite all the time constraints, and were recorded on an oceanic crust traveling at, oh what?, about 60 mph(probably faster if the 10 minute figure is correct)? Ridiculous really. But this has never deterred TC in any way. He just needs more time!!!

quote:

---

I wonder if Dr. Baumgardner thought about this - ah, but he doesn't have a geology degree, and might never have even heard of magnetic reversals. What a shame.

---

I would guess that he knows of them but ignores or rationalizes them away. I like geophysicists, but, as you indicate, they need to have an occasional reality check.

quote:

---

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

​

--No, I'm sure it does. Just do a search on google.

---

Ah, I see what you are saying. I was thinking more of authigenic minerals with which I am more familiar. In my particular specialization, we generally discuss authigenic minerals as having formed in-place, largely after sedimentation. However, my point is that authigenic sedimentation is hardly local since one of the sites for authigenic sediments mentioned in your referenced sites is 'the Pacific plate'. When one considers that all of the oceanic crust originated in areas far from terrigenous sources, you have hardly narrowed the field where authigenic sediments can be deposited. Furthermore, one would have to include, therefor, all chemical sediments and precipitates which are found in numerous environments from continental evaporites to deep sea cherts, banded iron formations and lacustrine chert beds.As I remember you exact words were:"--Why not? They're both localized sedimentation."[This message has been edited by edge, 06-24-2003]

quote:

---

"Believe me IR, TC does not have a clue that he is insulting anyone."

​

--I would think you would be the first person to evade this comment. Of all on this board you must be the one which pecks on my credentials with sarcasm the most.

---

Yes and there is a reason for that. Also, you can mock me all you want. I just take offense that you disregard all of the blood, sweat and years of back breaking work in the field by generations of geologists who actually did the work... How you can sit there and simply disregard them, and cleave to Baumgardner's wacky computer model is beyond my comprehension.

quote:

---

You think I don't take them as insults occasionally? But I don't really care most of the time because I would rather continue a productive discussion than derail a thread to a flame fest. I guess that when the creationist expresses his frustration in any minute form he is dismissed as a 'classic creationist ignoramous'.

---

Then prove us wrong. Give us just one iota of evidence in your favor.

quote:

---

"Quite true. At the rate of oceanic crust formation that TC needs, along with the number of magnetic reversals we know about, it would be virtually impossible to generate any magnetic reversal stripes on the ocean floor. Unless TC has some fantastic cooling rates for the oceanic crust, there would be so much noise from different parts of the crust cooling during different magnetic phases, I imagine that there should be no signal whatever. The thing that makes stripes discernible is that large parts of the oceanic crust cool through the curie point prior to each reversal. But hey, what do geologists know?!"

​

--The cooling rate indeed must be 'fantastic'.

---

Good! Then you have evidence! Let's see it!

quote:

---

I explain this in my article on ocean floor bathymetry. Unfortunately the gas dynamics required to do research are way over my head so I'll let others interested in that do the research. We need such cooling rates in the first place to get the ocean floor bathymetry to current values anyways so this begs the question for the presence of geomagnetic reversals.

---

Oh... So we still have to wait? In the meantime, you are convinced that this mystery mechanism is preferable to known mechanisms and observed events. Incredible!

quote:

---

Message 128: Edge

​

"My guess is that he will say that that is how fast they occurred, despite all the time constraints, and were recorded on an oceanic crust traveling at, oh what?, about 60 mph(probably faster if the 10 minute figure is correct)? Ridiculous really."

​

--Whats ridiculous is that you would even stop to think about considering his "10 minute" value. Not only that, but where did you get your 60 mph value? Oh I see, no where.

---

Well, actually, I believe that 40 MPH has been calculated somewhere else, but that is unimportant. The point is that the rate is completely unrealistic. You cannot create this much oceanic crust in a short period of time without it being painfully obvious that such a thing has happened. Evidence should be shouting from the rocks, but it isn't. All you have is some fantastic computer model created by a religious fanatic. That's it: zero!And I am not particularly fond of the 10-minute reversal figure, either. Once again, the actual amount is irrelevant. The rate must be extremely high, even thought there is NO evidence for it. The types of heat flows you are talking about should have sterilized the planet... completely.

quote:

---

"There is a reason for that, TC. That reason? You've yet to produce anything cogent supporting your position."

​

--Yeah, I guess refuting hundreds of arguments against the event doesn't mean anything.

---

Hmm, I missed those. Could you repeat just one of them here, just to remind me? But really, the point is that you have not produced a single piece of evidence to support your contention. Do we have to go over the 'Last Thursdayism' argument again?

quote:

---

"And I say again - a Phd. in a particular area of geophysics is NOT the same as a degree in the very basics of geology."

​

--Then you have no idea what courses you have to take to become a geophysicist. Too bad Joseph Meert isn't here to slap you around for your thoughts on geophysicists. Is anyone else reading this?

---

I have little doubt that Joe would agree: geophysics without a sound basis in fundamental geology and familiarity known geological ground truth is pretty much worthless. In fact, I know several geophysicists who would say the same thing. They would all consider Baumgardner to be WAY off base.

quote:

---

Hey Percy - I've been wondering about the question of strain analyses in the Triassic crust at the edge of the Atlantic Ocean. In theory this crust should be badly strained if CPT holds any truth. Ireland has little or no Mesozoic sediment because of glacial erosion, so I can't really say anything for definite about it - but I was wondering if you had any opinion?

---

What kind of strain are you looking for? There is certainly abundant structural evidence of extension in supracrustal rocks during the Triassic along the Atlantic seaboard.

quote:

---

To further clarify my assertions about the dismissal of authigenic sedimentary precipitates in the ocean as relevant in the search for a sedimentary thickness discontinuity. Edge, the deep-sea authigenic sedimentation is local, especially the most relevant hydrothermal precipitates for obvious reasons.

---

The distribution of manganese nodules is not local.

quote:

---

None of my 4 references did it say that 'the pacific plate' is a source of authigenic sedimentation.

---

No, one of them said the Pacific Plate is the LOCATION of authigenic sediments.

quote:

---

In all cases when referring to the pacific ocean they were talking of hydrothermal precipitation. The plate itself is not a source of this form of sediment.

---

That could be debated, but the point is irrelevant. Various chemical sediments are widespread across large tracts of the sea floor. The fact that all oceanic crust has formed at the ridges further suggests that hydrothermal precipitates at the ridge are also distributed across the oceanic plates.

quote:

---

One of the sources says that 40-50% of the pacific floor is where abundant hydrothermal systems can be found.

---

And you call this LOCAL??? Maybe you need to define you terms here. I suppose you could say that each molecule is deposited locally, so all deposits are therefor local... I do not get your point.

quote:

---

But of course one of the reasons for this is because sediments blanket the ocean floor on most of the remaining ocean floor (near the continents) where hydrothermal sediments are irrelevant to our inquiry. Technically that 'all of the oceanic crust originated in areas from terrigenous sources' isn't right, take the southern ocean floor from Iceland. Anyways, the reason for my classifying such deep-sea authigenic sedimentation as 'local' is because it is dependent on the quantity of available precipitation, energy, and concentration of hydrothermal systems in any one particular sea-floor locus.

---

So, if there were little terrigenous sediment the chemical sediments would occur everywhere on the sea floor. Now, let me get this straight... you call this local?Evidently, you have redifined 'local' without telling anyone. Please give us the new definition.

quote:

---

--The cooling rate indeed must be 'fantastic'.

​

Good! Then you have evidence! Let's see it!

​

--Well I didn't say that I had evidence. I said that if spreading rates were that high they must have been fantastic because of the observed ocean floor topography. In my article here I briefly extrapolate on this point: http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/...aft/heattransfer2.htm :

---

In other words, cooling rates must have been fantastic because you need them to be fantastic and there is absolutely no evidence that they were.

quote:

---

It has been suggested that a viable model for rapid cooling of the ocean floor may be discovered in the fields of gas and fluid dynamics5,9,10,12. These fields are most particularly difficult to comprehend and a solid understanding of the relevant dynamics of high speed flow and shock hydrodynamics is something that few scientists have obtained. Though it can be noted that it does seem to be a promising area for thorough and long-term research. If we can understand exactly how the newly formed hot oceanic crust would have reacted to direct and near immediate contact with the superposing ocean we may discover a phenomena by which heat can be transferred rapidly.

---

Utter nonsense. Do you have any idea how to place a significant amount of the mantle in contact with seawater? Do you have any idea what the products of such a reaction would be?

quote:

---

--Apparently, the way the underlying hot mantle rock would react with water is much different than warm solid igneous rock when it comes to the rate of cooling. As explained, however, I will leave the details of that research up to others.

---

Hmm, that's convenient. In other words you have absolutely nothing and yet your model is preferrable to mainstream plate tectonics?!

quote:

---

"Oh... So we still have to wait? In the meantime, you are convinced that this mystery mechanism is preferable to known mechanisms and observed events. Incredible!"

​

--Yes, unfortunately we have to be patient. Also, no I am not convinced of this. This is why I am agnostic when it comes to the age of the earth and the rest of the package that comes with it. In fact, I am convinced of the complete opposite. But because of the lack of research in the area, I don't dismiss the possibility that there could be major advancement in young earth geodynamics.

---

Are you certain that we can attain heavier-than-air-flight? I think a little more research should be carried out because there may be other explanations for airliners and missiles.I don't know about you, TC, but it would seem to me that valuable research time and money could be better spent than this. Especially when a perfectly viable explanation is available and has survived decades of testing. Good luck funding your project.

quote:

---

Well just think about it. If the Atlantic opened over the course of a single year, can you imagine the kind of strain the rock would experience? At current rates strain can be pretty high, but CPT conditions are literally off the scale.
There must be something in the rocks to show this if that were the case.

---

Absolutely. There should be structural, textural, compositional, morpologic and lithological effects that are both diagnostic of CPT and yet not explainable by mainstream PT. That is to say, there should be EVIDENCE. Neither TC nor Baumgardner have come up with anything yet.

quote:

---

--Indeed there may be. But I've got enough research inquiries going on right now. If you like, you can give examples of what is observed (having to do with structural, textural, compositional, morplogic, and lithological effects of stress and strain in the lithosphere) and what should be observed if CPT occured.

---

You are the one claiming some kind of legitimacy for CPT. It is incumbent upon you to support your assertions. If you cannot do so, then you must accept the fact that you will be taken to the woodshed in a debate.

quote:

---

"In other words, cooling rates must have been fantastic because you need them to be fantastic[1] and there is absolutely no evidence that they were[2]."

​

--[1] - Not because "I" need them to be fantastic, but CPT needs them to have been so.

---

If you are advocating CPT, you need this process to be accepted. If you are not supporting CPT, just what are we doing here?

quote:

---

--[2] - I didn't say anything about this but what would you expect to see if cooling rates were high?

---

I don't expect anything because there is no evidence that they were so high.

quote:

---

"Utter nonsense. Do you have any idea how to place a significant amount of the mantle in contact with seawater?[1] Do you have any idea what the products of such a reaction would be?[2]"

​

--[1] - Yes I have an idea - Rapid plate divergence.

---

So, you can expose a thin veneer of the mantle to seawater. Do you realize how large the mantle is?

quote:

---

--[2] - Not really. Do you?

---

No. Once again, it is your job to come up with an explanation to support your hypothesis, not mine.

quote:

---

"Hmm, that's convenient. In other words you have absolutely nothing and yet your model is preferrable to mainstream plate tectonics?!"

​

--And yet my model is preferable to mainstream PT???? Have you been listening at all!? I'm not going to reply to this nonsense again.

---

You have said elsewhere that the CPT model fits the data better than mainstream plate tectonics. I read that as saying it is preferrable to the mainstream model.

quote:

---

"Are you certain that we can attain heavier-than-air-flight? I think a little more research should be carried out because there may be other explanations for airliners and missiles.

​

--An untenable analogy.

---

Of course! It is utterly ridiculous! But so is your idea that an unproductive and unrealistic line of research should receive research attention.