Wegener and Evidence for Continental Drift

"If you are advocating CPT, you need this process to be accepted. If you are not supporting CPT, just what are we doing here?"
--I am advocating CPT to an extent. You just keep wanting to ignore the fact that I already know that we have abundant inconsistencies and areas where research needs to be done. This process of plate cooling is currently under scrutiny.

quote:

---

You say: "...there is absolutely no evidence that they[cooling rates] were[fantastic ie, high]."

​

I say: "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."
--hm..--Who would have thought--edge make a logical fallacy?"So, you can expose a thin veneer of the mantle to seawater. Do you realize how large the mantle is?"
--You mean in surface area below the ocean crust? Sure, but what are you trying to get at? You don't think mantle rock would be exposed to oceanic water at such spreading rates as CPT postulates?This ones not as bad as your previous circular reasoning, but it still made me laugh:

quote:

---

You say: "Utter nonsense... Do you have any idea what the products of such a reaction would be?" [edge expresses my apparent stupidity for invoking such a reaction because of the products]

​

I say: "Not really. Do you?"

---

"No[lol - why express his surprise at my invoking 'such a reaction' because of the products when he doesn't know the products..]. Once again, it is your job to come up with an explanation to support your hypothesis, not mine.[then you go off on a tangent. This is out of place because you are not responding to my attempt at supporting my hypothesis. You are responding to my denial of knowing what the products of the reaction would be.]"
--Mind if I do a little sketch for this one:"You have said elsewhere that the CPT model fits the data better than mainstream plate tectonics."
--Alright, let me get this strait... Never(with the possible exception of my first month or two a year and a half ago).. in all my existence here on have I ever exclaimed that CPT fits the data BETTER than mainstream PT. Where did you get this? You keep bringing it up despite its utter ridiculousness."Of course! It is utterly ridiculous! But so is your idea that an unproductive and unrealistic line of research should receive research attention."
--What makes any of my research proposals unrealistic and undeserving of an ioda of scientific attention? Some vague generalization against creationism isn't going to cut it, give me something specific.-------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-01-2003]

Sorry for the delay. Car accident and trying to keep the OYSI site updated."Might I suggest that you complete the points under discussion before introducing new points? The messages for the current points are already long."
--Well your the one asking me to, "be gathering evidence for the flood and for accelerated physical processes." If I happen to have these things, shouldn't I attempt to present it as well?"About my complaint that you are citing me as supporting your position, you seem to be forgetting that though *your* oceanic ridge evidence turned out to contain no data for close in to the ridge, mine did not."
--You didn't present any data similar to what I have done. I gave you hard accurate data, albeit not exactly what we need, it still was good data. All you gave me was a sedimentation rate and extrapolated from there--no data there. Where is the data that you presented close to the ridge which you seem to be referring to?
--Also, to reitterate once more, I never said that you supported any one of my positions. Only making it clear to another participant in this thread that no sedimentary thickness data has been presented close to the ridge."Though your geomagnetic argument is new, it is no different from your other arguments. You are still promoting a scenario for which you have no evidence, namely a young earth with its geology created by a recent worldwide flood."
--Nope, you misunderstand my points regarding the geomagnetic data. I am not attempting to give evidence that "the earth is young with its geology created by a recent worldwide flood", though indeed I rightly infer it form the analysis!"And in order to explain how evidence so strongly indicating slow sedimentation rates and an ancient earth is misinterpreted you are invoking imaginary processes for which you also have no evidence. So, no, TC, I see no deceleration."
--Hm.. Well the sedimentary data(or lack thereof to be more accurate) doesn't have anything to do with my analysis of the geomagnetic data(at least as far as I have considered). But to the point, I still don't see how you don't see the deceleration! Indeed William Lowrie did (well, actually the acceleration, or gradual increase in the frequency of geomagnetic reversals since ~80 Ma) and admittedly had no hint at an explanation of the trend. I'm going to write an article on this odd trend in the geomagnetic data. If you skim through the current draft you should have a good understanding as to why this is significant: http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/...is%20Grose/geomag.htm"As I asked a message or two ago, why don't you tell us what your evidence for the flood is?"
--Well lets see, In this thread I've presented two pretty solid cases. One with evidence from the crustal evolution of Venus. And another from an analysis of some geomagnetic data. For the former all you have said so far is that it 'reads like science fiction hash'. This isn't good enough, you have some explaining to do."You follow this with a long argument, but it simply ignores the fact that turbulent waters such as those of the flood will produce large-grained sediment. Certainly it wouldn't be *only* large-grained, but large-grained would dominate."
--It would? What if the majority was already fine grained pre-flood?"After the flood year the sediment should be fine-grained. In other words, the character of sediment deposited during the turbulent flood year should be different than that deposited later in calmer waters."
--I will agree that I am convinced that there would be a cloud of indefinite size in the oceans subsequent to the flood, but my argument still stands. The deposit this cloud would create would look exactly like it were deposited by a turbidity current."The mid-ocean sediment is all fine-grained."
--Indeed, for reasons already discussed"There is no discontinuity from large-grained to fine-grained."
--There isn't?? Again making conclusions from data you have not aquired? Also, I don't expect there to be a vertical discontinuity along the atlantic mid-ocean ridge because those large grained sediments wouldn't get there."There isn't even a gradual transition from large-grained to fine-grained."
--Data please."There is only fine-grained sediment."
--I would suspect so, maybe there is larger grained sediments than would be thought usual, there may even be a smoking gun there. But again I don't expect it, and there is still no data from which your conclusions can be made."Well, I guess it all depends upon how ridiculous you're willing to be. You've already got accelerated decay, accelerated continental drift, accelerated cooling and accelerated magnetic reversals. It sounds like you want to add to this accelerated migration, accelerated, mating, accelerated reproduction, accelerated growth, accelerated life spans and accelerated biological decay."
--Ignoring the sarcasm, you seem to think that in the early portions of the "flood year" that there would be this big gap between the Americas and Africa and that the pre-flood oceans would just get subducted right along with the pre-flood oceanic lithosphere. My point is that as soon as the Atlantic began to open up, water is going to begin to fill it up."At the beginning of the flood year the Atlantic Ocean did not exist. How do you explain fossil clams, which don't migrate all that fast, of a size indicating an age of at least several years in deep sediments off the Atlantic coast that would have come from the beginning of the flood year?"
--It would have came along with the rest of the ocean water form pre-flood oceans."Oh, give it a break, TC. This isn't biogeography, this is common sense. The water fell from the sky and welled up from the deep and flowed off the continents and into the oceans in torrents, and it carried everything not nailed down with it, including flora and fauna. Why don't we find them buried in the coastal sediments, TC?"
--I don't know, are you sure we don't find any terrestrial material/organisms in coastal ocean sediments? I havent done this sort of research and neither do I have any books with appropriate information. You seem to think that if you get a couple of basic books on geology and 'earth's dynamic systems' that you'll be able to do a complete thesis on any specific geologic topic. However this isn't true. I've been on the topic of paleosols and fossil forests as well as the process of lithification and each one of those topics are large and complex. Theres much more to these things, even if this is just a forum on the internet. Theres a lot of data, and thus a lot of analysis."So try again, TC. Here's what we should find in coastal sediments. I've corrected the reference to the mid-ocean sedimentation rate, and I've added a couple additional details:"
--I don't want to think too far ahead, but I still don't think that your thoughts on the organic content as well as some other aspects of your theory are adequate. Tell you what, you just get some real data on what we do see in costal ocean sediments and I'll be happy to discuss this topic further. The development of scientific theories always begins with a guess, you've made yours and I've made mine. Now, lets get that data."First, asking for evidence of what is common knowledge is just a stonewalling tactic, TC."
--lol, for what is 'common knowledge' you say? Well I think your out on a limb there. Lets get that data. And I mean real data, not a summary of the data, I want 'data'."Besides, had we found what I described in those four points above we would all be Creationists - the evidence would require it."
--I doubt it, yes even if we did."Second, you're taking two different tacks. First you dispute each of my four points, and now you defend them by asking me to provide contrary evidence. Pick just one approach, okay?"
--I am on one approach, I have disputed each of your points and then I ask you to defend them if you are so confident that it is contrary to the evidence. I'm not the one doing the defending there."Good grief, TC, we settled this already, don't you remember? You're slipping back into previous misunderstandings again. Evidence of continental drift is *not* evidence of PT or CPT."
--I don't think we settled it then. Evidence of continental drift, is indeed evidence for plate tectonics. Plate tectonics is just a more comprehensive dyamic system involving continental drift. You don't have the evidence for continental drift then you just have that much less evidence for the cyclic evolution of the oceanic lithosphere."Wegener wasn't gathering evidence for PT, he was gathering evidence for continental drift, of which he had a lot."
--Yup, which led to what???? the theory of plate tectonics could it be? Could they not somehow be tied together? I didn't read the introductory section of Turcotte and Schubert's book Geodynamics so many times for nothing."By the way, would it be possible for you to please stop using the word "uniformitarian". It's a popular Creationist attempt to mischaracterize modern geology, as in, "Modern geology is uniformitarian and does not accept the possibility of sudden catastrophes. Obviously modern geology is wrong since the world experiences earthquakes, volcanoes, fires and floods all the time."
--Percy, I've understood the principle of Uniformitarianism ever since my first real geology book (Marine Geology by John Ericson I believe) and have also since then understood these misrepresentations by my fellow YEC's. Inasmuch Uniformitarianism is the good ol' 'present is the key to the past' principle, continental drift probably didn't progress at the rates CPT proposes. Mainstream PT allows for minor 'catastrophes' in various processes, even sea-foor spreading rates, though the assumption that it has been essentially constant throughout the history of sea-floor spreading warrants the 'uniformitarian' label. Especially if we are going to be trying to differentiate between the two."Sorry, TC, it still reads like science fiction hash."
--It does? What would it mean to you if I said the same thing to you? Well, quite frankly, nothing. Again, you have some explainaing to do.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-17-2003]

"Actually, I'm just looking for ANY kind of evidence that you can provide."
--no your not.------------------

"Except that the premise was yours, not mine..."
--Its not the premise I am having trouble with. Its your saying that it is utter nonesense when you admittently don't know whether the premise is right or not. Read it again: You say "Utter nonesense...Do you have any idea what the products of such a reaction would be", I say that I don't, then you say you don't either! So why is it then utter nonesense? Oh wait a sec, you don't know."No, I don't. How do you cool mantle material at 200 km depth with seawater?"
--You don't. Why would I want to cool anything at 200 km depth with seawater?? Surely you know the thickness of the rigid oceanic crust(which does not deform readily, even over geologic time) at ocean ridge centers... sure as heck isn't 200 km."You have to cool the entire mantle in a very short period of time here. If you could do it by heating seawater, you still have the problem of a poached Noah and a sterilized earth."
--Indeed."Wrong. My meaning was not that I don't have any ideas, but that it is your job to come up with them."
--I already came up with the idea, that isn't the problem, the problem is that you have claimed it is utter nonesense."By the way, my ideas for products cannot are not found on earth. But just think of it logically: If the processes were that much different during the flood, why do we see no distinctive products of this interaction between the entire mantle and seawater, for instance."
--The entire mantle?? What do you think I am postulating here, hydrothermal circulation at hundreds of kilometres depth or something? I'm creating a new oceanic lithosphere, not cooling the entire volume of the mantle."Once again, the premise was yours, not mine. I am under no obligation to follow any rules of logic. If you provide an assertion you should have SOMETHING to back it up. I can't do all your work for you."
--I've backed it up as far as needed so far, that isn't where the dillema resides though, its your claiming my process is utter nonsesense and then claiming that you don't know what detrimental effects the process would have(ie, didn't support your claim that it is utter nonesense)."There are too many glaring inconsistencies, such as the cooling problem."
--The cooling problem is a topic if scientific research all on its own, so what are you talking about?"No self-respecting institution would give you a dime unless you can come up with a reasonable explanation and a way to demonstrate it."
--Isn't coming up with the explanation and demonstrating it part of the research in the first place??"Do you think research money grows on trees? Tell you what, I have a friend as NSF. Give me a copy of your proposal and I'll send it up to him for some constructive criticism. "
--"Constructive criticism" indeed.------------------

"I think it is worth copying because it makes a point rather clearly that I haven't seen expressed so well before.Now, I'm going to nominate it for a post of the month."
--Right you are!!! Fantastic, I am very glad that at least one of us understands this. Mainly this part:

quote:

---

So, it's entirely consistent to accept a supernatural explanation as a possible explanation for something, and yet ask for scientific proof or evidence to support that possibility. Science does that all the time -- notes a phenomenon, posits an explanation for it, makes predictions for certain other observations based on the proposed explanation, then tests to see if those predictions are met or not. If so, the explanation gains a bit of credibility.....if not, the explanation is either modified or scrapped in favor of an explanation that IS consistent.

---

--Also, please note, just because one theory is more plausible than another, even enormously, other theories attempting to explain the same phenomena arent always dropped on their head. A good example is the capture theory for solar cosmogenesis as an alternative to the currently prevailing Nebula hypothesis.------------------

"The only reason my posts grew more lengthy and detailed was that I was operating under the delusion that you only a needed a little more explanation and information. But just getting you to understand an explanation (not agree with it, mind you, just understand it) is like having a conversation with some kind of bizarro character."
--Maybe its not that I don't understand it, but that I require much more data than would generally be expected to be presented in an internet forum before I start making my conclusions."The important point that the detail was intended to get across is my original one, namely that different kinds of events leave different evidence. If there was a worldwide flood just a geological instant ago, there'd be evidence. And it would be different evidence than if there had never been any such flood. You're making the ridiculous argument that flood or not, the world would look just as it does today, and that there is therefore no evidence that would allow us to tell the difference."
--I began this thread with a mind-set that ran accross this line, I agree and not just because it happened to be 'convenient' but because thats just what I thought was adequate given what I had previously researched. Though I have changed a bit to come to agree with you that there indeed will be significant differences between catastrophic and uniformitarian geology."You also seem to be operating under the strange belief that there's some kind of weird disconnect between the information in geology textbooks and the kind of hard data one might find in technical journals, and that therefore if the original data is unavailable (as it will inevitably be, since few of us are subscribers to these journals) you're free to ignore the textbooks and draw whatever conclusions you like."
--Its not that I think there is a disconnect between general textbooks in geology and the ever-so detailed information given in science journals. Its just that sometimes when the inquiry requires those specifics, that ever-so detailed information always looks appealing. The general textbooks arent to be ignored, its just that as far as I can see the relevant information isn't there to answer most of the recent questions presented in this thread.--I will start a new thread soon for discussion ofo the geomagnetic analysis I've done if you'd like to join.------------------