Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Wegener and Evidence for Continental Drift
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 106 of 189 (42200)
06-06-2003 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by TrueCreation
06-05-2003 1:02 AM


Re: Wegener...
quote:
Sorry, TC, but this is not even good speculation. Please point out the subduction zones and divergent plate boundaries on Venus.
--Well all we have are remnants of what once was tectonism on Venus. See my quote from my paper in my post #84.
As I asked, where are the subduction zones and divergent plate boundaries?
quote:
And it, too, denies any diagnostic evidence for CPT.
--lol, just as I predicted.
What prediction was that?
quote:
But you would have to worry about other lines of evidence, like the rate of cooling of plutons and the relative ages of intrusive rocks that already had convinced geologists of an old earth.
--Thats not much compared to what is thrown at us in modern times.
Good then you can tell us where modern science has refuted any of these.
quote:
Wegener also had the principle of uniformitarianism which is a source of evidence against CPT.
--A geologic principle is a source of evidence?
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:
You statement is simple-minded and ignores surrounding data.
--My statement is simple-minded, what are you talking about?
I am talking about how you ignore geological principles along with historical aspects of geology. You ignore other data such as radiometric dating.
quote:
The only thing required for my statment to be completely accurate is to show that there has been a large amount of advancement in our understanding of geology in the past 70 years.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by TrueCreation, posted 06-05-2003 1:02 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by TrueCreation, posted 06-23-2003 5:09 PM edge has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 107 of 189 (42295)
06-07-2003 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by TrueCreation
06-04-2003 6:12 PM


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:
  1. If the rapidly moving continents generated little or no sediment, then most of the sediment on the sea floor was deposited after the flood and should have an average depth of 5 cm. This is not what we find.
  2. If the rapidly moving continents generated much sediment, as you're now arguing, it would increase in depth with distance from the ridge as you say, but it would be very coarse-grained since it's origination was catastrophic, and it would therefore be clearly differentiated from the 5 cm of organics and clay deposited above it over the past 5000 years. This is not what we find, either.
    And it goes beyond that. The organics in the layers laid down during the flood year should all have the same date of 5000 years ago, with only the top 5 cm showing a progression through 5000 years on up till now. This is not what we find, either. What you instead find is sediments increasing gradually in age with increasing depth till they finally exceed the limits of C-14 dating and other radiometric methods have to be employed.
    And there's more. To the extent you find fossils, you should find a jumble of fossils all mixed up with no organization as organisms meet their end in many ways at many different times during the flood year consistent with a catastrophe. This is not what we find, either. We instead find an organized progression of fossils that correlate with layer and radiometric age.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by TrueCreation, posted 06-04-2003 6:12 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by TrueCreation, posted 06-23-2003 5:17 PM Percy has replied

  
IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4436 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 108 of 189 (42434)
06-09-2003 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by TrueCreation
06-04-2003 5:19 PM


Re: Plate tectonics
quote:
quote:
The first feature that comes to mind that CPT doesn't account for is the magnetic reversal patterns seen in modern oceanic crust. Plate tectonics explains them perfectly, though.
They don't? Make sure you know what your talking about before you respond. Just don't go running to PaulK and ask for him to help you understand the geodynamics of CPT.
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:
Hey, if you have a problem with considering the possibility, thats fine with me. But I have an ancient book that says it happened, I think I'd like to give it the ultimate test.
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:
That's nice. Plate Tectonics is just the currently prevailing theory, for good reason because it doesn't have a problem explaining the geologic and tectonic features of the earth. I am interested in finding out if the processes must have been as slow as is assumed.
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:
The interview shows that he didn't even consider that plate tectonics might be valid
From personal conversation, I can pretty damn well sure assure you he is aware of the well foundedness of PT.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by TrueCreation, posted 06-04-2003 5:19 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by edge, posted 06-09-2003 3:40 PM IrishRockhound has replied
 Message 136 by TrueCreation, posted 06-23-2003 5:21 PM IrishRockhound has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 109 of 189 (42455)
06-09-2003 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by IrishRockhound
06-09-2003 11:51 AM


Re: Plate tectonics
quote:
TC: They don't? Make sure you know what your talking about before you respond. Just don't go running to PaulK and ask for him to help you understand the geodynamics of CPT.
IR: Please don't insult me TC. I'm a geologist and I do know what I'm talking about.
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:
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.
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?!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by IrishRockhound, posted 06-09-2003 11:51 AM IrishRockhound has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by IrishRockhound, posted 06-12-2003 3:55 PM edge has replied
 Message 137 by TrueCreation, posted 06-23-2003 5:23 PM edge has replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 110 of 189 (42460)
06-09-2003 5:21 PM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by John, posted 06-09-2003 5:28 PM roxrkool has not replied
 Message 113 by NosyNed, posted 06-10-2003 1:42 AM roxrkool has not replied
 Message 139 by TrueCreation, posted 06-23-2003 5:34 PM roxrkool has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 189 (42461)
06-09-2003 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by roxrkool
06-09-2003 5:21 PM


quote:
And nary a mention of it anywhere? I just find that extremely hard to believe. Call me a silly skeptic, if you will.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by roxrkool, posted 06-09-2003 5:21 PM roxrkool has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Coragyps, posted 06-09-2003 5:56 PM John has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 112 of 189 (42462)
06-09-2003 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by John
06-09-2003 5:28 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by John, posted 06-09-2003 5:28 PM John has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 113 of 189 (42480)
06-10-2003 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by roxrkool
06-09-2003 5:21 PM


magnetic life
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by roxrkool, posted 06-09-2003 5:21 PM roxrkool has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-10-2003 2:15 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 114 of 189 (42481)
06-10-2003 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by NosyNed
06-10-2003 1:42 AM


Re: magnetic life
From http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=523
quote:
One effect that may occur during a magnetic reversal is that the Earth may not be protected from charged particles streaming from the sun. {snip} If the Earth's magnetic field is weakened during a reversal, more of these particles will get through to the upper atmosphere. This could be a problem, but most likely the atmosphere is thick enough to protect the Earth's surface.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by NosyNed, posted 06-10-2003 1:42 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by PaulK, posted 06-10-2003 11:39 AM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 116 by IrishRockhound, posted 06-11-2003 7:21 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 115 of 189 (42500)
06-10-2003 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Minnemooseus
06-10-2003 2:15 AM


Re: magnetic life
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-10-2003 2:15 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4436 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 116 of 189 (42543)
06-11-2003 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Minnemooseus
06-10-2003 2:15 AM


Re: magnetic life
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.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-10-2003 2:15 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by roxrkool, posted 06-11-2003 3:44 PM IrishRockhound has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 189 (42553)
06-11-2003 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by TrueCreation
06-04-2003 5:28 PM


quote:
You think I don't know whats going on?
Yes.
For example, in response to my question, "Why are we talking about 200m?" you reply:
quote:
--I dunno, go read some of percy's posts, he brought it up. Have you been following?
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:
--lol, no. The sediments were talking about are pelagic, not terrigenous.
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:
--I wouldn't think so. But this is what Percy brought up a couple of posts ago and I assumed what he assumed to get that value for a little bit of subsequent analysis.
Oh, so you never 'really' argued for 200m?
quote:
But then in my recent post #74 I explained difficulties with finding such a sedimentary thickness discontinuity.
I've read your post #74. It is silly. It amounts to 'we can't know' which is a cop-out, TC.
quote:
--I claimed this???
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:
"That is, sediment travelled appr. a thousand miles in 4000 years. Do you have evidence for this rate?"
--No, I never said that.

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:
"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?"
--I don't know, I don't have any of this data until you get 5 km away from the ridge! See post #74 for more.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by TrueCreation, posted 06-04-2003 5:28 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by roxrkool, posted 06-11-2003 3:34 PM John has replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 118 of 189 (42596)
06-11-2003 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by John
06-11-2003 10:10 AM


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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by John, posted 06-11-2003 10:10 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by John, posted 06-19-2003 1:17 AM roxrkool has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 119 of 189 (42599)
06-11-2003 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by IrishRockhound
06-11-2003 7:21 AM


Re: magnetic life
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. ???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by IrishRockhound, posted 06-11-2003 7:21 AM IrishRockhound has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by zephyr, posted 06-11-2003 3:47 PM roxrkool has not replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 120 of 189 (42600)
06-11-2003 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by roxrkool
06-11-2003 3:44 PM


Re: magnetic life
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by roxrkool, posted 06-11-2003 3:44 PM roxrkool has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Percy, posted 06-11-2003 5:15 PM zephyr has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024