|
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: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Wegener and Evidence for Continental Drift | |||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: As I asked, where are the subduction zones and divergent plate boundaries?
quote: What prediction was that?
quote: Good then you can tell us where modern science has refuted any of these.
quote: When a principle is used to interpret data, it effectively produces new data. This is a loose usage, but but useful nontheless. If the new data were incorrect we would find out.
quote: I am talking about how you ignore geological principles along with historical aspects of geology. You ignore other data such as radiometric dating.
quote: No. You have to show that there was no other data than what Wegener himself presented. There was other data available and none of it supported a young earth or a biblical flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
TC writes: Right, now what you have to do is get the data, I only have data at 5+ km from the ridge. You're using the wrong pronoun - it is *you* who has to get the data. In my opinion it would be a poor investment of time looking for this non-existent discontinuity. A sedimentary discontinuity within a couple hundred meters of ocean ridges would be big news. If it existed it would have been ferreted out long, long ago by those Creationists who follow the technical literature, and would now be trumpeted by every Creationist organization and be common knowledge to all Creationists as the best (and only) evidence available supporting flood theory.
Not really, it wouldn't be a constant depth of 5cm, those (lets call them) post-flood sediments would have the same gradual thickening appearence. You have an insurmountable problem either way:
We can see that sedimentary thickness is highly irregular even on small scales, varying by meters. This will cause problems for any reconstruction of the history of sedimentation/sea-floor spreading rates. Your have a tendency to grasp at arguments of convenience without regard to consistency with your prior positions. You yourself have presented information contradicting this claim when you posted the link to your sediment depth map (http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/evcforum/sedthick.jpg). It clearly shows sediments increasing in depth with distance from oceanic ridges. Certainly there are irregularities and local conditions, but the trend of increasing depth of sediment with distance from the ridge is well known and is stated clearly in any elementary geology textbook. You are once again trying to argue the position of absence of evidence for CPT. You're in effect saying, "It would be nice if ocean currents and local conditions hadn't made such a hash of sedimentary depths that it's impossible to figure anything out." But this is not the case, and you know this because when it suits you argue the other way.
As explained before, the exponential thickening of sediments as you move away from the mid-ocean ridge is because they are originated from continents... As explained before, the thickening is linear, not exponential. And your repeated claim that mid-ocean sediments come largely from continents is incorrect. While currents and turbidity can cause continental runoff to find its way to mid-ocean and make contributions to pelagic sediments, they are a minority contributor once away from continental shelves.
John didn't know what he was talking about. Nothing I said was nonsense. The contradiction in Message 54 is there for anyone to see:
"This exponential increase in sedimentary thickness is due to runoff from continents and its erosion. The problem is that these sediments do not travel such distances(nearing the mid-ocean ridge) on the time-scale we are talking about." John picks up on the contradiction in Message 55, so you claim in Message 56 that you meant something different, but only compound the problem by making further misstatements, such as this now disproven statement about sediments near the ridge being immeasurable in 5000 years:
"There is sediment, but the sediment which is that near to the ridges is from local palegic sedimentation, and still that is immeasurable. Were talking about less than 200m from the ridge. Do you have some data to present to the contrary? Because the data that I have looked at, I can infer that it isn't giong to even be relevant unless we are talking about km scales, not less than 200m." Where is this data you kept claiming you were looking at until someone provided actual data indicating you were once again talking through your hat? And the statement about 5000 year old sediments being immeasurable is worse than the earlier one, because if it's not possible for pelagic sediments to accumulate measurably in 5000 years near oceanic ridges where the welling of warm water from the ridge encourages life in the waters above, then if the sea floor really formed during the flood year then it isn't possible for pelagic sediments to have accumulated measurably anywhere in the world.
Arent different animals adapted to an almost endless variation in environmental conditions? Those which couldn't handle the environmental stress, died off first and thats where we find their fossils. You're again choosing an argument of convenience inconsistent with your position. An animal that dies in a catastrophe because he's buried in sediment or a cliff-face collapses on him is not dying from "environmental stress." You're forgetting that you're talking about a catastrophe. You also appear unfamiliar with what is actually found in the sediments. Near continents where there's copious life on the sea floor we find progressions in the layers of the same animal type changing modestly from layer to layer in a manner consistent with evolution and inconsistent with the randomness of a sudden catastrophe.
Well, superposing layers are younger right? I am not saying that radioisotopic dating is completely ridiculous, I am saying that it may have just happend more rapidly, therefor, deeper layers will exhibit the appearence of age by such a method of dating. Skepticism about, or rejection of, evidence is only justified when there is countervailing evidence, but you've been unable to offer us any evidence for a young earth. When presented specific evidence for an ancient earth, such as radiometric dating, you express completely unjustified skepticism, and then go on to propose additional processes, such as accelerated decay, for which there is also no evidence. This kluge tower of unsupported proposals is completely unnecessary since Genesis is not a scientific account.
If your talking about ocean floor topography I wrote an article on this and it explains that it all depends on the rate of cooling. If the rate of cooling were faster(which is postulated) than assumed, there really wouldn't be such a big difference from slow and quick plate divergence. You once again explain your CPT flood scenario, for which you have no evidence, by proposing a process, rapid cooling, for which you also have no evidence.
I'm sorry if I don't have super-human research skills, but duplicating what tens of thousands of scientists have done in the past century under a different framework all by myself isn't the simplest task. On the contrary, your task is very simple. Based on the extreme differences between the PT and CPT scenarios, postulate what evidence would be present for one and not for the other. Then seek out that evidence. This is very simple, but so far you haven't even identified the evidence you should be looking for. Your Venusian evidence for rapid decay doesn't even qualify as good science fiction, and you're once again offering arguments of convenience inconsistent with your other arguments since you describe time periods of millions of years rather than the mere thousands of your other CPT arguments. You have to make up your mind whether you're going to interpret Genesis literally or not. If you really believe Genesis says the universe is only 6000 years old, then you can't offer evidence that's millions of years old. I think you misinterpreted most of the sentences in my last paragraph - it was just a brief recapitulation of earlier points expressed in terms of the evidence you would expect for CPT. They weren't intended as new points, but you seemed to be trying to force novel interpretations upon them. Let's just drop that part since you already addressed the same points earlier in your message. I appreciate that you conceded some validity on a couple points, guyots and the equatorial chalk line, but if you accept this evidence then you must place it into a consistent framework that you can describe for others in a way that they can understand and find persuasive. So far all you're doing is convincing people that you hold your views very firmly out of all proportion to supporting evidence. I have the 4th edition of The Earth's Dynamic Systems. Just look in the index under "Ocean floor", subtopic "sediment on". It always feels like Christmas when I reply to your posts - when I spell check my reply, your quotes light up in red. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IrishRockhound Member (Idle past 4436 days) Posts: 569 From: Ireland Joined: |
quote:quote: Please don't insult me TC. I'm a geologist and I do know what I'm talking about. Although the mechanism for magnatic reversals is still not quite understood, we know they do happen and the evidence for them recorded on the sea floor at spreading ridge margins agrees with PT. CPT, however, cannot explain them except by inferring that they happened several hundred times a day, because CPT happened over such a short period of time. As far as I am aware, this is impossible despite how little we know about their mechanism.
quote: I did consider the possibility. Any new geological theory is very interesting to me - and having examined Dr. Baumgardner's work, I have come to the conclusion that his basis for developing CPT is not scientific, and there is no solid evidence or foundation for CPT other than his belief in a literalist interpretation of the Bible. I'm sorry to tell you this, but in this case the Bible has failed the test.
quote: There is nothing 'assumed' about the rates of geological processes. Modern day evidence gives us data to this effect. Why should the past rates be so radically different? Because CPT demands it, and the Bible supports it. Make no mistake about this - there are far more differences in the two theories other than the difference in rates.
quote:quote: I am quite sure that Dr. Baumgardner is aware of this - however, I stated that he did not consider the theory to be valid. If he did, why should he develop CPT? Again we return to his need to satisfy the demands of the Bible, which he states several times in the interview (see last post for the link). And I say again - a Phd. in a particular area of geophysics is NOT the same as a degree in the very basics of geology. This is also apparent in the interview, as he seems ignorant of the principles of palaeontology. However, this thread is not discussing the merits of Dr. Baumgardner's qualifications - it is discussing CPT, and I have yet to see any evidence that it is a sound scientific theory. The Rock Hound ------------------"Science constantly poses questions, where religion can only shout about answers."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Believe me IR, TC does not have a clue that he is insulting anyone. After all, he knows that all it takes is to read a few geological memoirs and one knows as much as the professionals in the field.
quote: Quite true. At the rate of oceanic crust formation that TC needs, along with the number of magnetic reversals we know about, it would be virtually impossible to generate any magnetic reversal stripes on the ocean floor. Unless TC has some fantastic cooling rates for the oceanic crust, there would be so much noise from different parts of the crust cooling during different magnetic phases, I imagine that there should be no signal whatever. The thing that makes stripes discernible is that large parts of the oceanic crust cool through the curie point prior to each reversal. But hey, what do geologists know?!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 989 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
Looking at it from a different perspective, and with the understanding that no one knows for sure, I would expect magnetic reversals to have some kind of effect on life. Not to mention the fact that they were happening every few hundred years (???). Throughout human history, to be exact, according to the Bible.
I cannot fathom the thought that something of that magnitude (and it must be!) has gone completely unmentioned in the Bible or other historical writings. When would the last reversal have taken place if indeed CPT were true? A hundred years ago? Anyone know? And nary a mention of it anywhere? I just find that extremely hard to believe. Call me a silly skeptic, if you will.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: You have to think that those sea-faring folk would have noticed. The Chinese were using compasses, or compass precursors, 1800 years ago. Surely that is plenty of time for quite a few reversals. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Nah, all those reversals were during the year Noah was floating around - good thing he didn't have a compass, or he would have been confused.
I did have a creationist tell me once that there were no magnetic reversals, because "there's no place on Earth where a compass points south." That statement is not only untrue (try the Canadian Arctic) but also has nothing to do with the "fossil" magnetism in crustal rocks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
I would expect magnetic reversals to have some kind of effect on life. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
From http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=523
quote: In the process of finding the above, I did see a comment (elsewhere) that no effect of magnetic refersals, has been found in the fossil record. The above cited also gives a link to an outline of the development of plate tectonic theory, including discussion of magnetic refersals and the resultant "stripes" on the oceans floors. That site is at http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/developing.html Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
That's a nice page. The linked page (sidebar)http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/stripes.html is even more interesting.
It looks to me as if CPT needs the rate of spread to be closely correlated with the (hypothetical) accelerated decay rate to explain the data.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IrishRockhound Member (Idle past 4436 days) Posts: 569 From: Ireland Joined: |
quote: This is perhaps not strictly true. Since no one knows what kind of effect a magnetic reversal would have, no one is sure about what evidence there is for one in the fossil record. We know they do happen, and since life doesn't appear to die out during a reversal (as in The Core - stupid movie) then its reasonable to assume that whatever effect it had was not very severe. Off the top of my head, I did a few calculations as to the number of reversals during CPT... for the sea bed to look the way it does now, and to have formed by CPT, a magnetic reversal would have to happen every 10 minutes. I suppose a miracle would do the job. The Rock Hound ------------------"Science constantly poses questions, where religion can only shout about answers."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Yes. For example, in response to my question, "Why are we talking about 200m?" you reply:
quote: Yet when we look just one post back we find that that you stated:
TC post #56 writes: Were talking about less than 200m from the ridge. And you are using this as a defense of your position. So which is it? You don't know why we are talking about 200m from the ridge, in which case your post #56 is mostly crap. Or, you do know and the response you just gave is mostly crap.
quote: Interesting. In post #56 you stated:
--The relevant sediments were talking about, yes. This was in response to my statement, "First, you say that sea-floor sediments are due to runoff from the continents." So here again, something is very very wrong. Which sediments are at issue?
quote: Oh, so you never 'really' argued for 200m?
quote: I've read your post #74. It is silly. It amounts to 'we can't know' which is a cop-out, TC.
quote: Claimed that sedimentation 'is all due to runoff from the continents'? Yes, you did.
TC post #54 writes: This exponential increase in sedimentary thickness is due to runoff from continents and its erosion. This is the post where I noticed the contradiction in your explaination. But you clarified it in post #56.
"Haven't you just contradicted yourself? First, you say that sea-floor sediments are due to runoff from the continents." --The relevant sediments were talking about, yes. quote: Yes, you did, TC. You claim that local pelagic sedimentation is immeasurable, yet sedimentary deposits are found very close to the ridges. This means that these sediments MUST HAVE COME from the continents. Or there is something wrong with your scenario.
quote: I don't know? I don't know???? It is your damn argument!!! You don't have any data? Well, here ya go-- sediments on a ridge.
This portion of the Juan de Fuca Ridge is an example of a sedimented ridge-crest system (Figure 12). Such sites are of significant economic interest because sediments are particularly effective at trapping metals dissolved in hydrothermal fluids and are often the sites of large sulfide deposits. At Middle Valley, the sediments host a significant active sulfide accumulation and are underlain by a vigorous hydrothermal system.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.ocean.washington.edu/neptune/pub/white_paper/scidriv5.html And here...
Sediments cover all but the active portions of the mid-ocean ridges like dust that covers the infrequently-used objects in your home. The sediments fall from above, like old animal skeletons (biogenous sediments). Also, considerable dust from the continents blows over the oceans and is deposited (terrigenous sediments). Finally, hydrogenous sediments are those forming insitu (in place). They crystallize directly from the liquid when concentrations become sufficiently rich.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.sci.ccny.cuny.edu/~hindman/eas100/Chapter14.htm Your lack of data is self imposed, TC. And that is your biggest problem. So, wanna try again?
John writes: What are you talking about? The issue you have to deal with is that there is a pretty steady decrease in sediment depth from the continents to the ridges. You seem to be claiming that this is all due to runoff from the continents. That is, sediment travelled appr. a thousand miles in 4000 years. Do you have evidence for this rate? But wait... the sediments just don't get there, period. And the "local palegic sedimentation" is immeasurable. Yet, there is sediment, so what are you talking about? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 989 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
Wow, I'm impressed you had the energy to make that post. I can't seem to make heads or tails of what TC is trying to say most times. I figured I haven't been following long enough... but maybe not...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 989 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
I tried searching through GeoRef for some literature on magnetic reversal effects on life, but wasn't able to find any. I may need to get creative with my search terms.
Perhaps IRH is correct. Maybe the effects are relatively mild and something along the lines of beached whales/dolphins and birds flying the wrong directions (ending up on strange continents and islands), etc. ???
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zephyr Member (Idle past 4550 days) Posts: 821 From: FOB Taji, Iraq Joined: |
Normally I go looking for this stuff on my own, but for some reason I'm having trouble finding it - what's the estimated period of the reversals? Is it believed to be somewhat regular and constant?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024