Wegener and Evidence for Continental Drift

Having read a little about Catastrophic Plate Tectonics and the whole idea of flood geology on answersingenesis, I can only say that there's too much evidence against it, never mind any for it. Plate tectonics just doesn't occur over the timescale proposed by this theory - it requires a movement rate of miles per day, instead of what we see in modern times, i.e. inches per year (measured by satellite-mounted laser). Are we to assume that everything happened faster in those days?Flood geology does not account for the features of the crust we see today, where continental drift and the modern theory of plate tectonics does. There are also several features that contradict it completely - see this web page:
Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd editionI had the opportunity to read through an article written by Dr John Baumgardner, who first proposed CPT - and I couldn't help but note that he does not have even a degree in geology.The Rock Hound

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.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.

quote:

---

And no, sorry, I don't care about noah and the ark. I care about geophysics and the geodynamics of catastrophic plate tectonics.

---

There is no reason to concoct a theory like CPT unless you want to prove that the flood created the geological features seen today. If you ignore Noah's Flood - and the entire Bible in fact - then plate tectonics is a perfect, working theory. Here's a piece taken from an interview with Dr Baumgardner:

quote:

---

Dr. Baumgardner: I'm trying to understand what happened to the Earth in Noah's flood and put together a solid scientific case that supports the biblical account of a world- destroying catastrophic flood.

---

The link for the interview is Revolution Against Evolution – A Revolution of the Love of GodThe interview shows that he didn't even consider that plate tectonics might be valid - he set out believing that the Bible was the only true account and somehow modern geological evidence supported it. I think this is called 'shoehorning' - I've seen it happen before in geology.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.The Rock Hound

quote:

---

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.

---

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

quote:

---

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.

---

I did consider the possibility. Any new geological theory is very interesting to me - and having examined Dr. Baumgardner's work, I have come to the conclusion that his basis for developing CPT is not scientific, and there is no solid evidence or foundation for CPT other than his belief in a literalist interpretation of the Bible. I'm sorry to tell you this, but in this case the Bible has failed the test.

quote:

---

That's nice. Plate Tectonics is just the currently prevailing 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.

---

There is nothing 'assumed' about the rates of geological processes. Modern day evidence gives us data to this effect. Why should the past rates be so radically different? Because CPT demands it, and the Bible supports it. Make no mistake about this - there are far more differences in the two theories other than the difference in rates.

quote:

---

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.

---

I am quite sure that Dr. Baumgardner is aware of this - however, I stated that he did not consider the theory to be valid. If he did, why should he develop CPT? Again we return to his need to satisfy the demands of the Bible, which he states several times in the interview (see last post for the link).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. This is also apparent in the interview, as he seems ignorant of the principles of palaeontology. However, this thread is not discussing the merits of Dr. Baumgardner's qualifications - it is discussing CPT, and I have yet to see any evidence that it is a sound scientific theory.The Rock Hound------------------
"Science constantly poses questions, where religion can only shout about answers."

quote:

---

In the process of finding the above, I did see a comment (elsewhere) that no effect of magnetic refersals, has been found in the fossil record.

---

This is perhaps not strictly true. Since no one knows what kind of effect a magnetic reversal would have, no one is sure about what evidence there is for one in the fossil record. We know they do happen, and since life doesn't appear to die out during a reversal (as in The Core - stupid movie) then its reasonable to assume that whatever effect it had was not very severe.Off the top of my head, I did a few calculations as to the number of reversals during CPT... for the sea bed to look the way it does now, and to have formed by CPT, a magnetic reversal would have to happen every 10 minutes.I suppose a miracle would do the job.The Rock Hound------------------
"Science constantly poses questions, where religion can only shout about answers."

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?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. The Rock Hound------------------
"Science constantly poses questions, where religion can only shout about answers."

Hello? TC? You out there?C'mon, I want to keep this thread going. It's fun The Rock Hound------------------
"Science constantly poses questions, where religion can only shout about answers."

quote:

---

I could possibly grant you my recognition of your credibility when you comment on mainstream geology. But from what I have read of your posts, you don't have much of an idea as to what the current paradigms of young earth geodynamics and the currently prevailing geological models thereof are.

---

Are you sure you're not trying to be insulting? I did read Dr. Baumgardner's work. I understand 'the current paradigms of young earth geodynamics', such as they are - and my conclusion, as a professional geologist, is that CPT is wholly inadequate in comparison to normal plate tectonics. And let's be honest here - Dr. Baumgardner did not develop CPT as an alternative; he states as much that he did it to explain the Bible and nothing more.

quote:

---

I don't think it is difficult to explain in a CPT framework. While they didn't have to occur 'several times a day' as you say, it was often. Given that CPT requires that the current oceanic lithosphere all be originating during the flood event, the recoreded reversals in magnetic polarity must have also occured during that time. Also, given that the tectonic event also incorperates accelerated decay and there would therefore be a corresponding increase in temperature in various seismic localities, I would think that outer-core convection would not also be effected. The convection of the outer-core is the current explanation for the earths magnetism.

---

I agree that the rate of one a day is more accurate than my estimate. I possibly over-calculated the number of reversals, and I apologise for my error. However the rate is still too high - this means that the convection currents in the outer core would have to change completely once a day and produce a new reversal. This is not possible, TC - the energy required to do this is beyond the capacity of the Earth. Even if Baumgardner's model could accomplish this, it is based on faulty assuptions. I refer you to Joseph Meert's essay on ocean depths:THE DEPTHS OF THE OCEANSThis refutes Baumgardner's work using simple equations for ocean floor topography. He states:"Baumgardner's model relies on unrealistic viscosity values and extreme values for other parameters in order to generate runaway subduction."Notice that Joesph Meert is the associate Professor of Geology at the University of Florida. This is the same Joseph Meert who apparently will slap me around for my opinion of Dr. Baumgardner.

quote:

---

"I did consider the possibility. Any new geological theory is very interesting to me - and having examined Dr. Baumgardner's work, I have come to the conclusion that his basis for developing CPT is not scientific, and there is no solid evidence or foundation for CPT other than his belief in a literalist interpretation of the Bible."
--So, have you examined Baumgardners work or have you examined his motive for doing the work? This sounds more like the latter.

---

Do you have nothing better to do than insult me for having a professional opinion? The motive for his work is as important as the work itself - because he is obviously biased by it and has admitted as such! If I decided to do research because a 2000 year old book told me that all blue-eyed people were idiots, and admitted it in an interview, no scientist would dream of taking me seriously no matter what I found.

quote:

---

"I'm sorry to tell you this, but in this case the Bible has failed the test. "
--No, if it has failed, it is that interpretation of the Bible, not the Bible itself.

---

And it never ceases to amaze me that no creationist can possibly consider that the Bible is wrong, as if it's some kind of insult to God or whatever. It's document that's thousands of years old, written by men (who may have been guided by a higher being), and translated across three different languages at least of which there are numerous versions today - and you mean to tell me that there are no errors or mistakes? That the original writers, or the translators, didn't add their own colouring to events described? That it was never changed, not once, by the Church? Who the hell do you think you're fooling?

quote:

---

Also, this is one of my problems I have with many of my opposing views such as yourself in this instance. You have little patience, taking a look at the current condition of our young earth framework, finding it has flaws, and even highly detrimental flaws and conclude it false. I think this is fallicious and future advancement will show this to be true.

---

You don't think that a model with highly detrimental flaws should be discarded in favour of one that has none? That's what scientists have been doing for years. If I had no patience, TC, I'd post my actual opinion of Dr. Baumgardner and you on this thread and start a flame war - but that is against the rules, would serve no good purpose, and I believe firmly in the free and open exchange of ideas rather than name-calling.

quote:

---

"There is nothing 'assumed' about the rates of geological processes."
--lol, you sure? I thought you were a geologist?

​

"Modern day evidence gives us data to this effect. Why should the past rates be so radically different?"
--That isn't my question, my question is, why do the past rates have to be so radically uniform.

---

Modern geological rates are measured directly. These are assumed to be the same as prehistoric rates because a fundamental principle of geology is that of Uniformatarianism - that the modern processes are similar or identical to the prehistoric ones. This works in every other area of geology very well, so much so that geologists take it more or less for granted - so fine, nit-pick if you will. The fact remains that the difference in rates that is required for CPT makes no sense (see Joseph Meert's essay), whereas it fits perfectly with PT.

quote:

---

"Because CPT demands it, and the Bible supports it. Make no mistake about this - there are far more differences in the two theories other than the difference in rates"
--I havent made this mistake. Sure there are different processes, but it seems that 99% of it has to do with the rate of known processes(eg. cooling, subduction, orogenesis, lithification, etc).

---

You don't seem to understand here - such an extreme difference in rates produces an extreme difference in the processes involved, especially in geology. Under a fast rate of strain, rock behaves completely differently in comparison to a slow rate of strain. It's similar to some one slowly extending their arm, and some one throwing a punch - the effects of the two actions on the arm are very different.The rock records the nature of the strain it experienced, and recently geologists have begun to make great advances in strain analysis. I'm suprised that Dr. Baumgardner hasn't thought of performing such an analysis, which could concieveably prove or disprove his theory once and for all.

quote:

---

--Funny, I have yet to see anything which you have presented which isn't compatible with CPT.

---

That's because, unlike creationists, I don't feel the need to bash away at theories I don't like. I could present evidence that I feel would refute it - but I doubt you'd listen. Anyway, this is your thread; you have to support your own assertations.Oh and for the record - Joseph's essay isn't compatible with CPT.The Rock Hound------------------
"Science constantly poses questions, where religion can only shout about answers."

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?I ask this because you obviously have an extensive scientific background.The Rock Hound

quote:

---

But Meert is not a Professor of 'Geology', but of Geodynamics.

---

Where did you get this from? I found his webpage here:http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/jmeert/index2.htmlIt says quite clearly "Assistant Professor of Geology". Of course, the University of Florida could be lying. Look, I never meant to make a dig at geophysicists in general - and if that's the way I sounded, they all have my sincerest apologies. I probably shouldn't have brought it up in the first place. But can you at least admit that Dr. Baumgardner might be just a little biased here?

quote:

---

IRH also states: "...However the rate is still too high - this means that the convection currents in the outer core would have to change completely once a day and produce a new reversal. This is not possible, TC - the energy required to do this is beyond the capacity of the Earth."
--This is a topic of little understanding in the geophysical community--the "unknown mechanisms" that affect the fluid motions in the outer core. But you can round up what information you have showing that your assertion is feasible.

---

I would say that this subject is better understood than you think. See this link:GeodynamoIt's an excellent page on explaining reversals - I invite anyone to go read it, it's very interesting. (The scientists here built a model of the Earth's geodynamo, and found that the magnetic field reversed itself after a certain time period.) This especially caught my eye:

quote:

---

Our solution shows how convection in the fluid outer core is continually trying to reverse the field but that the solid inner core inhibits magnetic reversals because the field in the inner core can only change on the much longer time scale of diffusion [2]. Only once in many attempts is a reversal successful, which is probably the reason why the times between reversals of the Earth's field are long and randomly distributed.

---

I have no direct evidence that a super-fast rate of reversals is not possible. (The first reason that came to mind that it is not possble is the sheer amount of energy required.) So, in the interests of fair debate, I will support my assertation by other means.I think we may agree that if CPT is wrong, then the idea of a fast rate of reversals is meaningless. In this case, what would we logically expect to see as a result of CPT? Let's go back to basics - it requires a vastly increased rate of tectonic movement, something on a scale never encountered before in human experience. Slow plate tectonics (SPT) needs centimetres per year; CPT needs kilometres per day - say 5cm per year versus 10km per day.This makes 5cm per year versus 3650km per year - consistent, as the Atlantic is on average 3,500km across, and CPT requires that it opened over a single year. So, from 5cm to 3650km is an increase in the rate of 73,000,000%.This is not just a rate increase. The same increase in energy is needed, with a corresponding increase in the effects of tectonic movement compared to what we see today. This means that volcanic activity was literally off the chart during CPT - catastrophic, even. What I would expect to see across the entire Atlantic basin is giant sequences of volcanic material consistant with an explosive, high energy regime.The entire Earth must have been affected by this, as it is inconcieveable that only the Atlantic opened this fast while all other plate margins remained moving at 5cm per year. So the entire Earth experienced this phase of volcanic activity for one year at least. From this I would also expect to see a mass extinction of life at this time recorded in the fossil record.Even one year of this kind of extreme volcanic activity would have a phenomenal impact on the Earth's climate, further reinforcing the mass extinction. This abrupt alteration of climate would be recorded in the rock - see for example, the Snowball Earth Hypothesis, which indicates a severe climate change from evidence such as this.As Dr. Baumgardner hasn't said when he thinks CPT happened, the last two points here are not verifiable. However the first can be tested - are there thick volcanic sequences in the Atlantic?By the way, your link to that article isn't working.

quote:

---

IRH says: "Under a fast rate of strain, rock behaves completely differently in comparison to a slow rate of strain. It's similar to some one slowly extending their arm, and some one throwing a punch - the effects of the two actions on the arm are very different."
--Please expound.. and expound greatly. I have read a bit on elasticity, flexure, stress, and strain, and haven't come to the same conclusion. But then again, it hasn't been my favourite geophysical topic of inquiry. You might also want to consider the fact that this is not the case in all scenarios. Using the ocean floor bathymetry argument given in Joe Meerts article, your analog of the slowly extending arm and throwing the punch will produce the same results, depending on the rate of plate cooling. This is explained in my article.

---

Perhaps that wasn't the best analogy... I'm simply using logic here. If CPT happened then the rock would experience an unheard of degree of strain in comparison to SPT because it's, well, catastrophic. This strain must be recorded in the rock. I was curious to know if it was or not.

quote:

---

IRH, I don't understand why you would inquiry on percy's scientific wisdom because he has "an extensive scientific background" when you claim to be a "professional geologist". The reason the Atlantic coasts of the Americas and Africa do not exhibit great compressible deformation from strain(from the breakup of pangea) is the same as mainstream PT will give you. Also, about the Iceland bit, I don't understand what your trying to get at. But surely you know the origin of Iceland and why it doesn't experience stress and strain like the larger continents.

---

Eh? I never said anything about Iceland. I mentioned Ireland, i.e. where I live. The reason I asked Percy is that he lives in New Hampshire - which is the East Coast as far as I know. If the rock was strained, we wouldn't see it in Ireland because Ireland lost most of its Mesozoic rock in the last Ice Age, and I'm only really familiar with the specifics of Irish geology. I did not consider myself to be familiar enough with American geology to answer this question for definite, so I asked Percy.Do you doubt that I am who I claim to be? If you want I can mail you a copy of my degree.And that's my hideously long response... enjoy...The Rock Hound------------------
"Science constantly poses questions, where religion can only shout about answers."

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.The Rock Hound------------------
"Science constantly poses questions, where religion can only shout about answers."

TC, think about it - this is the kind of geological evidence that could conclusively prove or disprove CPT. Are you sure it's not so important that you can afford to ignore it?I do wonder if Dr. Baumgardner thought about this.Incidently, do you know when CPT was supposed to have happened? I'm very interested in the timescale we should be looking at.The Rock Hound------------------
"Science constantly poses questions, where religion can only shout about answers."