Wegener and Evidence for Continental Drift

TC: You want more data?What would the sediments look like in your scenario? I'm guessing the relatinship would be approximately linear with distance from the continental margins and with no discontinuity between continental sediments and pelagic. (other than at the 200 m mark).Is that correct? What do you do if the data contradicts this?

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

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?

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.

A couple of things:
It is my amatuer understanding that some bacteria us the earth's magnetic field to tell up from down. So they can swim down. The northern ones swim to magnetic notrh and the southern ones to south (I think that's the right way around) to swim down following the field lines. I wonder what they do if it changes every few days?I also think that there is a problem with losing some of the shielding from the solar wind when the field drops to zero at the reversals. I wonder if this leaves traces and what they would be in a year with many zero times.

The field is decreasing. From memory I think the reversal is less than a 1,000 years out.edited to add
found this
Magnetic Reversal of the Earth's Poles2,000 years is the curent estimate.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-11-2003]

I think this is about the right place to post this.
It was posted by GeeWhiz at fundies vs athiests on msn.

quote:

---

You (and several of your co-horts) confuse evidence with explanations. Surfin is trying to EXPLAIN the flood using science....where we're just asking for EVIDENCE. Here's an example that will explain the difference:

​

The bible says the flood occurred, and the ark came to rest on Mt. Ararat. Since it contained all the land animals of the Earth (all others would have drowned) then, if the bible's story is True, we could expect to see a layer of relatively uniform composition sediment over the entire planet that dates back 6,000 or so years. Below that layer would be the fossils of all the animals that lived before the flood. Above that layer
we could expect to see a fossil record of younger and younger fossils the farther one gets away from Mt. Ararat. That is, the animals would have started to re-populate the Earth from the vicinity around Mt. Ararat, and succeeding generations would have moved farther and farther away. If this type of fossil record was found, it would strongly suggest that the bible's story might be True. That doesn't explain the flood.......but it provides evidence consistent with the possibility that the flood occurred.

​

So, God could have caused the flood (supernatural explanation).....but scientific evidence would support it.

​

However....if you wish to explain the flood scientifically, then you are making a case that it was a natural occurrence....and natural occurrences don't need God to explain them. If you insist that it was a supernatural event, then no other explanation is necessary......and you should be able to find scientific evidence for it because one can make certain predictions (such as fossil distribution, or a world-wide layer of sediment separating fossil distributions) from a given explanation that can be tested scientifically.

​

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.

---

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.

I think this is a poor example, I am pretty sure (but not a cosmolgist( that the capture theory has been "dropped on it's head", completly.When a new theory comes long it may not totally wipe out consideration of another one, but frequently the older one is shown to be false, period. Then it is dropped on it's head. The flood idea was shown to be false centuries ago.As for you other comment and the copied paragraph
You need to note this from the preceding paragraph
"and you should be able to find scientific evidence for it because one can make certain predictions "It seems that the evidence and predictions (that differ from "conventional" geology are missing here.