A scientific theory for creation

The Publishers are New Wine Ministries.
They do a lot of books from relatively unknown authors like myself whereby they act as distributors but pay the author on a previously agreed price which is generally much better than the usual royalties basis. The downside of this is that the author pays the production
costs to the Publisher. Some books do extremely well and the production costs are recuperated when only about 500 copies are sold.
Other books dont even recuperate the production costs. My first book
did surprisingly well but the second one is struggling. I think it is just too technical for most Christians and ofcourse non Christians are not interested in it. But I am glad to say all production costs have been met one way or other. For details of the publisher see the books website http://www.btinternet.com/~pimenta/

Hi, LRP!I've been waiting to see if anyone would reply. Maybe you've received some emails, or perhaps replies will come, but let me reply to this for now: I just don't buy this, not one little bit. The basic principles of many complex topics, such as relativity, evolution and geology, can be summarized in a paragraph.But no one wants you to type your book into the discussion board. Who would want to read an entire book in glowing-phosphor form anyway? Perhaps we could just talk about the nature of the circular argument you've detected in the evidence for roving continents.--Percy

(LRPs Reply to Message 47)Fine-then lets start at some fundamentals.Do you agree that there is a shell of basaltic rock that surrounds the whole Earth and forms a 'cracked' and patched up sphere?. It is hidden below the oceans and by continents but we know its there. Its thickness is also very great-tens of kilometers perhaps-may be you can put a more precise figure to this.Do you also agree that below this shell is a softer layer called the asthenosphere?Do you further agree that the continental crust is more granitic and has a lower average density than the basaltic crust?If you can affirm these statements we can proceed to the next stage
If not lets see where we differ.

Assuming you're talking about the lithospere, this is just mainstream geology, so I agree with it. The rest sounds fine too. I don't know if it matters to your discussion, but there's also oceanic crust, which is denser than continental crust.I accept mainstream geology, so there's really no need to confirm agreement on all the non-controversial details.--Percy

I am glad you agree-as I said all my facts come from mainstream geology anyway but its the interpretation that is different as you will see as we proceed.Am I right that one of the assumptions in plate tectonics is that
movement of the plates is due to drag effects of currents in the asthenosphere?Am I also right that below the continental crust there is a discontinuity of sorts called the Moho discontunity? and that below this discontunity we are back on the basaltic or oceanic lithosphere?

Your approach to explaining this is sending off alarm bells. The validity of your ideas is independent of the style of presentation, and I don't want to encourage rhetorical games.It all sounds fine except for the part about the oceanic lithosphere underlying the Moho discontinuity.Could you hurry this up a bit? I'm not a young guy!--Percy

Sorry for the delay in replying. I have just spent about 90 minutes
giving a detailed reply only to lose it all by accident.
I will try again tomorrow as it is now getting quite late.

"Sorry for the delay in replying. I have just spent about 90 minutes
giving a detailed reply only to lose it all by accident.
I will try again tomorrow as it is now getting quite late. "
--Do so when ready. I don't know where any of this information you've given will support your hypothesis, they are all measured properties.------------------

I wasn't trying to rush you time-wise, just number-of-posts-wise.Did you accidently hit ctrl-W (Close Window) while entering your reply? I do that all the time, which is one reason why I only enter long replies in an editor. My editor of choice is emacs where I've defined ctrl-W as "Delete Backward One Word," and sometimes I forget I'm in the browser text window. Why don't I change my ctrl-W definition? Hey, I had it first (1985), so the rest of the world has to change! There, *that* should win me the Don Quixote for hopeless quests. --PercyPS - Also, the "ctrl" key is in the wrong position, but one battle at a time.

My model for continental drift requires a basaltic shell that forms a thick sphere right round the globe. The supercontinent Pangaea sits on top of this shell and depresses it by several miles which is why the Moho discontunity is only about 6kM below the oceanic crust but 32kM below the continental crust. My book explains how the Moho discontunity was formed excapt that I called it the asthenosphere.My difficulty with the mainstream science model for continental drift are
1. I cannot see how currents in the upper mantle are sufficiently strong to drag the plates and why they act in opposite directions at
and at right angles to the line where new sea floor is being created.
2. I cannot see the currents as strong enough to cause any movement of the intact lithosphere.
3. I cannot see how essentially granitic continents were formed from an essentially basaltic lithosphere.
4. The magnetic stripes on either side of a ridge where new sea floor is being created show reversals in polarity. I understand this reversal in polarity is detectable in land rocks which can be dated by isochron radiometric dating techniques. And hence the argument is that the magnetic stripes is also a measure of time. I find it difficult to accept this assumption because I dont think we know what causes a reversal of polarity and also because reversals would have to coincide with melting episodes if isochron dating is to be used.My model for continental drift is very simple and follows on from how I think the supercontinent was formed. In my model the deep sea trenches and oceanic ridges are not consequences of continental drift but of continent formation. But even with my model there is no way of timing the event.Perhaps you can put me right on the mainstream science model for continental drift if my understanding is not adequate.

quote:

---

My difficulty with the mainstream science model for continental drift are
1. I cannot see how currents in the upper mantle are sufficiently strong to drag the plates and why they act in opposite directions at
and at right angles to the line where new sea floor is being created.

---

Then you agree with most mainstream scientists.

quote:

---

2. I cannot see the currents as strong enough to cause any movement of the intact lithosphere.
3. I cannot see how essentially granitic continents were formed from an essentially basaltic lithosphere.

---

Have you ever taken a geology course?

quote:

---

4. The magnetic stripes on either side of a ridge where new sea floor is being created show reversals in polarity. I understand this reversal in polarity is detectable in land rocks which can be dated by isochron radiometric dating techniques. And hence the argument is that the magnetic stripes is also a measure of time. I find it difficult to accept this assumption because I dont think we know what causes a reversal of polarity and also because reversals would have to coincide with melting episodes if isochron dating is to be used.

---

Why not with cooling episodes?

"1. I cannot see how currents in the upper mantle are sufficiently strong to drag the plates and why they act in opposite directions at
and at right angles to the line where new sea floor is being created.
2. I cannot see the currents as strong enough to cause any movement of the intact lithosphere."
--You do know there are extensive studies done on this in the appropriate geophysical resources?"3. I cannot see how essentially granitic continents were formed from an essentially basaltic lithosphere."
--After studying the geochemical structure of hot-spot & subduction volcanism, mid ocean basalts, and continents, it becomes indicative that they were formed by differentiation processes. That is to say, the early earth was molten and the continents were formed by geochemical fractionation of incompatible elements. That this has happened is well founded."4. The magnetic stripes on either side of a ridge where new sea floor is being created show reversals in polarity. I understand this reversal in polarity is detectable in land rocks which can be dated by isochron radiometric dating techniques. And hence the argument is that the magnetic stripes is also a measure of time. I find it difficult to accept this assumption because I dont think we know what causes a reversal of polarity and also because reversals would have to coincide with melting episodes if isochron dating is to be used."
--What do you mean the reversals should 'coincide with melting episodes'? If temperatures rise above the rock's curie temperature, remnant magnetism will be erased. There are several classes of paleomagnetism by which magnetic orientations can be acquired.--[edit] - Paleomagnetism on the continents and at spreading ridges can be contrasted and assuming superposition (a very reasonable assumption..) that this is evidence for spreading is inferred because of their correlation."My model for continental drift is very simple and follows on from how I think the supercontinent was formed. In my model the deep sea trenches and oceanic ridges are not consequences of continental drift but of continent formation."
--Then how do you explain the seismic studies of subduction zones as well as geotherms of subducting plates without the subduction?------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-25-2003]

I concur with the responses from edge and TC, and won't touch on anything they've already addressed.Much of what you wrote is merely argument from person skepticsim, eg, "I cannot see how..." and so forth. Edge's question about whether you've ever taken a geology course (a book or two would also suffice, I suppose) was the same question that occurred to me. Instead of informing yourself of the geological information on your questions, you've instead simply asked your uninformed self if you can see how it could happen, answered that you could not, and let that conclude your study. The last part about melting episodes and isochron dating sounds like you're confused about something, hard to tell what. It isn't the reversals that are recorded, but the direction of the magnetic field at the time the rocks solidified. There was recently a scientific paper that received a lot of attention because they had found a series of volcanic deposits that apparently occured just before, during and just after a magnetic reversal. Sorry I don't have a link, but I can probably track one down if this is something you're interested in.--Percy

Yes I do agree with those parts of mainstream science that makes sense to me. My post was on aspects which do not make sense.I am not a Geologist by profession but work in a related field and mix with real Geologists all the time. But I have to say it has been difficult to find Geologists who really want to consider alternative explanations. Before my last post I did manage a conversation with an MSc graduate in Geology from a university renowned for its work on plate techtonics. He understood and shared the difficulties I have with the model. So it seems having done a course in Geology would have not made any difference!Isochron dating is from from cooling episodes not heating episodes. I used 'heating' in error.Sorry

Extensive studies on currents in the upper mantle?
I was hoping you would have told me how these were detected.I cannot agree with the a theory that continents were formed by geochemical fractionation on an early molten earth. Continents are on one side of the globe only. If the theory was correct we would expect islands dotted all over the globe.The theory that the earth was once in a fully molten state does not make much sense to me. If it were so what stopped it from becoming flattened to a disc due to its rotation. And even if this did not happen there would be nothing but a 4000m deep ocean covering the globe.Not melting episodes but cooling. My mistake. See post above.