Wegener and Evidence for Continental Drift

"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:"
--Sorry, misunderstanding on my part, I wasn't trying to dance around it, I will address this issue in a few.

Hi there Paul, I will now (finally, sorry for this wait) address this earlier assertion of mine:

quote:

---

"Flood geology is not just lacking a mexhanism^[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.

---

--[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]

"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.------------------

"Postulating a mechanism means nothing."
--Right, though producing a mechanism which explains various sets of data, does."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."
--True."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."
--I wouldn't think so. After reading more of his material I have come to give him more credit than I did previously. His mechanism of gravitational potential energy works well and gets the job done, explaining much of that seen in geochem/geophys quite well, though there are still many details which need worked out. I think for a very young theory being seriously worked on by a very small handfull, it is exceptional."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."
--You mean gravitational potential energy, deformational instability, and resultant runaway subduction. I think it has a better foundation than you would think. The basic idea of runaway subduction is a somewhat well-known phenomena in geophysical circles. From what I have read on the weakening mechanisms for the subducting lithospheric slab, including loading rate, wet/dry, damage, temp parameters, and anisotropy. One of my current studies will be looking at some of the details on the runaway regime in considering temperature and isothermal differentiations. The current status of CPT is in better condition than conventional theory at the time wegener was doing expounding work on continental drift. We are slowely but surely working our way forward."But this still drifts from the thread's topic. You claimed there is evidence for the flood."
--Yes it does drift somewhat from the topic, though the topic wasn't that I had made the claim that 'there is evidence for the flood', but that as PaulK stated: "Flood geology is not just lacking a mexhanismsic it is also lacking the evidence which continental drift had at the point Wegener proposed it." I claimed that he was wrong, and am supporting that claim. I like others on this board [do not - edit]see much of a matter in this accusation. So it might be fun to discuss other implications such as those in the first parts of this post."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?"
--Well that would be evidence for CPT because that's what it would predict, that the continents once were conjoined, and thus flora and fauna would be similar. But of course this renders that evidence equivocal as will occur with the presentation of much of that evidence for general plate tectonics and continental drift. Our theories are so similar because we both seak to explain the data, the data certainly suggest that the continents have been connected in the past and that they have moved around in the past at some finite rate.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 04-07-2003]

quote:

---

quote:

---

--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?)

---

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?

---

"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."
--No, I think you made it very explicit..: "Flood geology is not just lacking a mexhanism it is also lacking the evidence which continental drift had at the point Wegener proposed it.""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."
--lol, no, Wegener et. al. had at least 30+ years to develop the theory of continental drift, and all along never had a theoretical mechanism even slightly plausible to get it done. According to what a few of my fellow evo's have been flying my way since I can remember, If that were me and my few fellow geophysical YEC's, I would have been punched in the face for not doing science. But then again, there is that other group of evo's who understand science and the progressive nature of scientific developments. The general acceptance of continental drift did not come until ~60 post-conception.------------------

"Actually, it's both."
--Certainly you know the relation.."His model generates enough heat to boil away a a significant part of the oceans."
--Yup, it will certainly vaporize a portion of the oceans, oh well."His physical properties are way out of line with reality because he needs them to be for his model to work."
--Not really, from what I can see, his physical properties seem to be resultant from physical conditions going through an evolutionary progression. What do you see? Or should I be asking 'what is it you have heard'?"It is standard knowledge that Wegener had no viable mechanism."
--Yup, but what isn't standard knowledge is that "Wegener had no mechanism"."He may have thrown out some ideas without any support, but basically, he didn't have a clue. Maybe he was like modern YECs..."
--Yeah, so I guess that as long as you (or, the data) are not supporting some crazy notion of 'Young Earth Creationism', its perfectly alright to throw around unfounded hypotheses every which way."Then one might be wise to live and learn a bit before making wild assertions."
--Yeah, whoever came up with some 'continental drift' theory, must have been a real moron.. but wait a sec, its 90 years later and its foundational to all of geology and is, in itself, a professional research topic. Wierd isn't it.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 04-07-2003]

"Well it seems quite obvious that I never raised the point explicitly, so I really have no idea why you think otherwise."
--You can repeat it as many times as you wish, but the quote (verbatim) remains, in which you made your intentive explicitly obvious."Quite frankly it seems that you are using it so that it is easier to ignore evidnece against your views."
--I've made assertions in my post toward percy, why don't you comment on those then if you want to go to another (more relevant) topic then? Either way, my claim that you were wrong about Wegener and the current status of 'flood geology' was correct. I don't use such petty 'escape routes'."As I pointed out in my first post Wegener come across the first evidence in 1911 and died in 1930. That is 19 years, not 30 - and leaves out his other work (Including his wartime service),"
--Oops, yes your correct about this, my source quoted a 1946 reference for Wegener, it seems that date is for a 4th print. My points remain though."But your argument here is that since your ideas resemble plate tectonics we should take evidence for that as evidence for your ideas ?"
--No, not because it 'resembles plate tectonics', because it is a theory which explains the same data."Wegener DID have evidence that pointed to continental drift over the prevailing view that continets were static."
--Never argued, or suggested an argument against this."Since you seem to deny that you have such evidence - all yours is apparently better explained by conventional geology - it seems that my point was quite correct.
--Nope, CPT explains all of that which Wegener had in his day.------------------

quote:

---

Which "various sets of data" does it explain? That was the point of much of my message: Baumgardner has no data. He has no data because he isn't explaining data, he's explaining Genesis.

---

--I don't know about you, but I don't mind it if anyone is trying to support any documentation of the distant past. Indeed, the bible is used quite a bit in modern archaeology. But the reason I find Baumgardner's hypothesis very promising is because it does explain much of the geophysical data. Of course this is largely because mainstream plate tectonics is practically identical.

quote:

---

Baumgardner needs data indicating that the continents moved rapidly, minimally miles/year. Where is that data?

---

--What are your thoughts on, say the South Pacific and African Superswells? These are titanic deflections in elevation(the South Pacific Superswell for instance, exhibits anamalous elevations of ~250 meters). I am curious as to the origin of these superswells--that is to say how it is explained with conventional geo-time-scales. From analysis of the seismic tomography of the area, underneath these superswells is a ring of cold downwelling mantle rock. In the center of this ring on both sides of the earth is warm rock squeezed up like toothpaste. The density difference of these regions is on the order of 3-4% which is also inferred as temperature differentiations. I am confused as to how there could there be such a difference in temperature if there was supposed to be upwards of 100 million years of time for the cold upper boundary layer to reach the mantle bottom.

quote:

---

Radiometric dating of seafloor. The seafloor is very young near mid-oceanic ridges where seafloor is produced, and it is very old, sometimes as old as 200 million years, just before it sinks into subduction zones. The progression from young to old is gradual and continuous across the seafloor.

---

--You know we postulate accelerated decay so I wouldn't consider this "solid evidence that the continents moved very slowely".

quote:

---

Seafloor sediments. The depth of seafloor sediments gradually increases with increasing distance from mid-oceanic ridges, and the depths correspond to existing sedimentation rates.

---

--I would expect the exponential decrease in sedimentation as we move closer to mid-ocean ridges, though that they correspond with existing sedimentation rates may be relevant. Please elaborate on the status of this argument.

quote:

---

Age of seafloor sediments. The radiometric ages of seafloor sediments correspond to those of the underlying seafloor, and becomes gradually younger with decreasing depth of sediment, with the top layer of sediment being nearly contemporaneous.

​

Magnetic seafloor striping. The alternating magnetization of the seafloor into stripes provides another age confirmation through correlation with other paleomagnetic data.

---

--Same thing as your #1.
--Do you have anything which could potentially be less equivocal than your 1, 3, & 4?

quote:

---

All we're asking is that you produce your flood scenario evidence for rapidly moving continents.

---

--Well that apparently wasn't PaulK's intention for beginning this thread.

quote:

---

By the way, you've misunderstood PaulK's original point about Wegener. The reason scientists sought a mechanism for moving continents was because of the evidence uncovered by Wegener that the continents had moved. Presumably Baumgardner sought a mechanism for rapidly moving continents because of the evidence that the continents had moved rapidly.

---

--I don't know what his motive is on that one, but I know what mine is.. I have yet to find conclusive evidence that plate motion has always been so uniform--hence my interest in searching for whether there can be a tenable model of young earth geodynamics or not.

quote:

---

We're claiming there's no evidence for rapidly moving continents, and you're claiming there is. All you need to do to settle this discussion in your favor is produce the evidence.

---

--Where did I say there was such evidence (ie, such evidence which would unequivocally provide me with that conclusion)?-------------------Geoscience - http://www.oysi.promisoft.net

quote:

---

Then you agree that the model is completely unrealistic. You are being unusually reasonable today.

---

--An unwarranted inference from what I actually said, but yes it is not yet a scientifically plausible alternative to uniformitarian plate tectonics.

quote:

---

What progression is that?

---

--The progression is the evolution of the runaway regime. From the initial perturbation to its quick progression toward instabilities resulting in the runaway regime.

quote:

---

Why would the physical properties of the mantle change and then reverse?

---

--What mantle properties changed and reversed??

quote:

---

Well, let's just say that as long as you don't ignore other lines of evidence that completely negate your hypothesis.

---

--Such as?

quote:

---

Well, there was no evidence against it either. THat is the point. The only real argument against Wegener was that he couldn't explain continental drift. In the case of YECism there is abundant evidence that it is scientifically bankrupt.

---

--Yes, and it wasn't solved for quite some time also. Wegener had his inconsistencies, we have ours. Have you not noticed that CPT isn't exactly an older paradigm?------------------Geoscience - http://www.oysi.promisoft.net

quote:

---

But this thread is about evidence. It originated with the Grand Canyon thread where at one point while defending your young canyon views you alluded to Wegener, and PaulK explained that while Wegener had no process, he at least had evidence.

---

--Yes it did indeed originate from that thread. However, notice the controvercial assertion from which all of this has come from, "Flood geology is not just lacking a mexhanism it is also lacking the evidence which continental drift had at the point Wegener proposed it." My italicized and bolded emphasis is the reason for my extreme disagreement. My point is that all of the evidences Wegener had to take into consideration at the point he initially proposed it is entirely consistent with current CPT theory. Seeing as this renders those evidences completely equivocal it is (as I have argued) quite pointless to be arguing by the the original intent of this thread. The only real difficulties with CPT geophysics are the problems of heat transfer and related. I address these problems in some of my in-development papers. I plan on making these difficulties well-known in the YECist community by getting them published in their journals.--So, what is to become of this thread?-------------------

What? So what is it, might you tell me, that I don't understand about the syntax of this segment of his assertion--"at the point Wegener proposed it". How am I misinterpreting his words? They speak quite plainly to me, what do you think was the intended topic of this thread and how is it supported by the assertion: "Flood geology is not just lacking a mexhanism it is also lacking the evidence which continental drift had at the point Wegener proposed it." Because this is the assertion that we are all arguing about.-------------------

quote:

---

And the complete lack of any geological evidence.

---

--Were going to have to agree to disagree until I find time to write a complete textbook on the subject.-------------------

quote:

---

In other words, PaulK was definitely *not* saying that flood geology is inconsistent with the evidence available to Wegener. It is, but that's not what PaulK was saying.

---

--Well the evidence available to Wegener at the time isn't contradictory to flood geology, and that was my only point. I am still a bit confused about how the more recent things PaulK has been saying (will explain later) supports my apparent misinterpretation of his initial words--but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and try to go by what we are now saying.

quote:

---

If you have any doubt just read Message 1 of this thread where PaulK says, "So are you going to prove that Wegener did not have significant evidence?"

---

--This would have been a misunderstanding then of what I was trying to say that I would love to prove him wrong on. I wasn't going to show that Wegener did not have significant evidence, but that the evidence he had available to him does not contradict current flood geodynamics.

quote:

---

He asks this question because since flood geology has no evidence (at least none that you've presented so far)

---

--Unequivocal evidence, yes, I think I'm a bit clueless. I am either not thinking right or I can't see any unequivocal evidence for uniformitarian geology either.

quote:

---

the only way you could be anywhere close to being right about having more evidence for flood geology than Wegener had for continental drift is if Wegener also had no evidence.

---

--I may have made an assertion like this in my early days on this board a year and a half ago, but I have never made such a claim that uniformitarian geology is in better condition at all. Infact, it is the opposite.

quote:

---

So where's your evidence?

---

--I can't think of any, unequivocal. Heck, I'm still trying to formulate a model that works without giving the earth a similar geologic history as Venus--a global resurfacing.--I would never misunderstand a post on purpose to further my own agenda or anything like that.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-27-2003]

"It should be of great concern to you that evidence for an ancient earth can be stated in simple sentences in short messages while your evidence requires an entire textbook."
--What I mean to say is in order to formulate a model that works and could be forwarded as an alternative to mainstream geology.------------------