|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Wegener and Evidence for Continental Drift | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
In answer to TC's challenge
Firstly I strongly suspect that you mean to argue from the people who preceded Wegener - your words give the impression that you have some sort of "secret weapon" and everything I have found points to Wegener having a good deal of evidence. I also point out that such a move would simply further weaken your claimed analogy since you do not include the early geologists who believed in - and eventually abandoned - the idea of the Noachic Flood as a contributor to the Earth's geology. Wegener is credited as the Father of Continental Drift, since he was the first to make a scientific proposal. And the fact is that he - on his own - was more successful gathering evidence than the YEC Flood Geologists all working together seem to have been. That rather puts your claims in perspective. Take for instance this website : http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html 'While at Marburg, in the autumn of 1911, Wegener was browsing in the university library when he came across a scientific paper that listed fossils of identical plants and animals found on opposite sides of the Atlantic. Intrigued by this information, Wegener began to look for, andfind, more cases of similar organisms separated by great oceans. Orthodox science at the time explained such cases by postulating that land bridges, now sunken, had once connected far-flung continents. But Wegener noticed the close fit between the coastlines of Africa and South America. Might the similarities among organisms be due, not to land bridges, but to the continents having been joined together at one time? As he later wrote: "A conviction of the fundamental soundness of the idea took root in my mind." ' So it seems that Wegener had significant evidence when he first became convinced of the idea. On that same page it goes on to say that Wegener gathered more evidence (including the stratigraphic comparisons I referred to), and that he presented "extensive evidence from several fields". It is clear that as I claimed that Wegener did indeed have strong evidence. And even if we take the publication of the last edition of his book as the terminus (1929) he gathered it all in less than twenty years (Wegener died in 1830). So are you going to prove that Wegener did not have significant evidence ? -----Edit: Correct that above to be "Wegener died in 1930" - Adminnemooseus [This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-07-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"In answer to TC's challenge"
--Firstly, please cite the 'challenge' or assertion that I have given you by quoting verbatim. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
[EDIT] I apologise for the replaced statement since I seem to have made an error. As Admin has poitned out the challenge was :
----------------"Flood geology is not just lacking a mexhanism it is also lacking the evidence which continental drift had at the point Wegener proposed it." --Open up a new thread, i'd be happy to prove you wrong here. ----------------- Well let us start with your original reference(Post 20 http://EvC Forum: The Grand Canyon: Canyon Formation and Erosion -->EvC Forum: The Grand Canyon: Canyon Formation and Erosion) --Your fault lies with your conclusions regarding the veracity of flood geology. In analogy, your with that group of people back inthe early century who dismissed continental drift as implausible. We are still in development, and just have a lot of catching up to do. In the light of the evidence that Wegener had collected and in light of the fact that he did it with fewer resources than Flood geologists have then I think it is clear that any analogy has sunk. [This message has been edited by PaulK, 03-09-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
TC writes: "In answer to TC's challenge"--Firstly, please cite the 'challenge' or assertion that I have given you by quoting verbatim. Not sure why you're dancing around the issue. In Message 56 of the Grand Canyon thread there was this exchange where you issued the challenge, not sure why you need Paul to quote it verbatim:
"Flood geology is not just lacking a mexhanism it is also lacking the evidence which continental drift had at the point Wegener proposed it." --Open up a new thread, i'd be happy to prove you wrong here. So let's get on with it please. --------------------EvC Forum Administrator [This message has been edited by Percipient, 03-08-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wehappyfew Inactive Member |
quote: Maybe TC meant that he would be glad to provide the evidence for Flood Geology that Paulk declares is missing. TC is not known for clarity in experssion after all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Not sure why you're dancing around the issue. In Message 56 of the Grand Canyon thread there was this exchange where you issued the challenge, not sure why you need Paul to quote it verbatim:"
--Sorry, misunderstanding on my part, I wasn't trying to dance around it, I will address this issue in a few.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Well, since TC is posting again, time for a...
...BUMP
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
Hi there Paul, I will now (finally, sorry for this wait) address this earlier assertion of mine:
quote: --[1] - The mechanism is one of, or both radiogenic heat or gravitational potential energy (multiple personal conversations with Dr. John Baumgardner have led me to a new appreciation of his version of Catastrophic Plate Tectonics) of the subducting slab. I had earlier suspected that radiogenic heat would be the initiation as well as the sustenance of rapid plate motion during CPT, though some of my analyses have hinted that this may be incorrect. It is probably just the initiation perturbation of mantle rheology, the rest of the course of CPT must have been due to the mechanism of gravitational potential energy and resultant trench pull. Obviously this mechanism as a whole is not flawless (especially in my juvenile mind) though I think I and the rest of that oh so small YECist geophysical community is on the right track. --[2] - If mind serves me right, virtually all evidences up until the works of Wegener (1946) are equivocally agreeable with current mainstream views on plate tectonics (and continental drift) and YECist Catastrophic Plate Tectonics. Everything from the similarity in shape between the west and east coasts of Africa and South America, Glaciation events and tropical climates in anomalous places are also easily explained. Relict Mountain Ranges, and fossil type correspondence. Our mechanism for CPT is obviously much more plausible than that given by Wegener at the time. --The main inconsistencies within the dynamics and mechanics of CPT theory come out of detailed geophysical analysis. In particular the effects of heat and the distribution of radioisotopes pre-flood and post-flood as well as the possibility for isotopic fractionation in the earth with different locations for tendencies to concentrate. --What evidence was presented up until the time of Wegener which contradicts that given by CPT and YECists 'flood' mechanics? (or have you been watching Hovind tapes?) ------------------ [This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 04-05-2003] [This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 04-05-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Personal conversations? Egad, this is worse than I thought! Did Baumgardner tell you about the heat his model necessarily generates? Did he explain to you that he uses totally unrealistic values for mantle viscosity, etc.?
quote: Not flawless! LOL!
quote: You haven't been reading this thread. Wegener had no mechanism.
quote: What a bunch of tripe! You admit to inconsistencies and then cover them up with a parroted litany that makes no sense whatever! Why not just admit it: the model doesn't work!
quote: Why does this matter? You could just as easily say the CPT is not contradicted by all the evidence up to Magellan. Why do you have to ignore modern data to make your model believable?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi TC!
Just trying to keep this thread on track. The issue is evidence. You were trying to address the questions about evidence raised by this exchange:
TrueCreation writes: "Flood geology is not just lacking a mechanism[1] it is also lacking the evidence which continental drift had at the point Wegener proposed it.[2]"--Open up a new thread, i'd be happy to prove you wrong here. But instead of presenting evidence for the flood, your reply talked about mechanisms. This thread is for you to present your evidence of the flood. For evidence of continental drift Wegener could point to similar flora/fauna and geology on corresponding sections of South America and Africa. For evidence of the flood you point to...what? --------------------EvC Forum Administrator [Edited for clarity. --Admin] [This message has been edited by Admin, 04-06-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
This does not seem to address the points I raised.
Firstly is it not the case that Baumgardner's works makes assumptions which are questionable if not outright false ? Without addressing this it would seem that your response to point 1 is inadequate. Accelerated radioactive decay is an additional hypthesis that is not supported by the available evidence (and also lacks any plausible mechanism). Secondly point 2 requires you to show that the evidence that Wegner had supporting continental drift is no better than that *supporting* Flood geology. Not that the evidence Wegener had is consistent with your views. And, I disagree that evne that is the case - you would need to adequatley explain the deposits dating until after the separation, which means that your ideas would be less plausible at the time (since they introduce additional problems). Now your model has more problems than Wegener's ideas did since it is contrary to much of the evidence of geology rather than simply contradicted by the inaccurate - and largely speculative views at the time. Surely the major problems with "CPT" would include iochron dates which cannot be adequatley explained, the unsupported assumptions needed for the model to work, and the evidence against accelerated radioactive decay if you assume radiogenic heat (for instance the various calibrations of radiocarbon dating all show no sign of such an event within the last 10,000 years) - as well as the complete lack of evidence in the archaeological record for any such event in the last 10,000 years. So what is the positive evidence for flood geology ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Randy Member (Idle past 6247 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
Come on TC, we discussed the multiple falsifications of Baumgardner's bogus boiling flood model in great detail already. I think you were around. If you forgot about it here is the link.
http://EvC Forum: Creationist Baumgardner: one of the top mainstream mantle/plate tectonics simulators! -->EvC Forum: Creationist Baumgardner: one of the top mainstream mantle/plate tectonics simulators! Randy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Did Baumgardner tell you about the heat his model necessarily generates? Did he explain to you that he uses totally unrealistic values for mantle viscosity, etc.?"
--So which one is it edge? 'unrealistic' mantle viscosities, or excess heat? Certainly you know the relation.. "You haven't been reading this thread. Wegener had no mechanism."--I've read this thread, but what have you been reading? Wegener most definitely proposed a mechanism when he expounded on current (at that time) theories for continental drift. He suggested that tidal forces or forces associated with the rotation of the Earth were responsible for the breakup of pangea and subsequent continental drift. "What a bunch of tripe! You admit to inconsistencies and then cover them up with a parroted litany that makes no sense whatever! Why not just admit it: the model doesn't work!--Because that would be taking gross advantage over my inexperience in geophysics... "Why does this matter?"--I have no idea, why don't you ask PaulK? He's the one who thinks it does. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
TC writes: "You haven't been reading this thread. Wegener had no mechanism."--I've read this thread, but what have you been reading? Wegener most definitely proposed a mechanism when he expounded on current (at that time) theories for continental drift. He suggested that tidal forces or forces associated with the rotation of the Earth were responsible for the breakup of pangea and subsequent continental drift. Postulating a mechanism means nothing. You have to have evidence for that mechanism in order for it to be considered. Wegener's ideas of continental drift were rejected because he had no evidence of any mechanism that could drive continents through rigid oceanic crust. He had evidence that the continenets had moved, but no evidence for how they had moved. Baumgardener is in somewhat the same boat. He has postulated a mechanism for how the continents could have moved in a very short period of time, but he has no evidence for that mechanism. And his position is far, far weaker than Wegener's, because he also has no evidence for the phenomena for which he's proposed a mechansism. In other words, not only is his mechanism mere unsupported postulation, but so is his phenomena of rapidly moving continents. But this still drifts from the thread's topic. You claimed there is evidence for the flood. As I mentioned above as Admin, Wegener could point to similar flora/fauna and geology on continents on opposite sides of the Atlantic. What evidence can you point to for the flood? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
[From Edge's post]
quote: I have no idea why you claim that I am concerned about the above matter. SO far as I am concerned it is a diversion brought up by you. I do not even know why you brought it up. The actual issue would seem to be important for reasons stated in my head post. In a comparison with Wegener you cannot claim a lack of time or manpower - YEC has had more time and more manpower than Wegener ever did. If the evidence for Flood Geology is weaker than that Wegener amassed for continental drift it cannot be for those reasons.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024