Re: Creationist Claim: No evidence that plates are still moving


Al wrote:
> "Stuart" <bigdakine@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1125779739.738163.149480@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Al wrote:
> > > Snip
> > > > > to describe the leftovers from the last ice age.
> > > >
> > > > And it's still used this way. There are a lot of words with more than
> > > > one meaning.
> > > >
> > > > > Yes I do read a lot of old stuff. It isn't slanted by modern
> paradigms
> > > and
> > > > > observations are observations.
> > > >
> > > > No, it's slanted by old paradigms, and observations aren't always
> > > > observations, either.
> > >
> > > They are in this case. Howarth's book is all observations, read it, it's
> > > interesting.
> > > >
> > > > > I started to answer your questions and then it occurred to me that
> you
> > > had
> > > > > not answered mine.I still do not think that anyone has cleared up
> the
> > > > > Meservey business. It's all very well saying that he knew nothing
> about
> > > PT
> > > > > this is not refutation. Does he have a point?
> > > >
> > > > No, he doesn't. The Pacific Rim doesn't have to pass over anything,
> > > > because it was assembled a little bit at a time from many smaller
> chunks.
> > >
> > > You obviously know nothing of topology.
> > > The whole of the supercontinent had to break up and reassemble
> eventually in
> > > its present configuration, case in point, part of it around the Pacific
> > > Basin.
> > > Using your methodology the plates carrying the various parts would
> spread
> > > out and cross the major diameter of the earth and reassemble on the
> other
> > > side becoming conveniently narrower. Do tectonic plates do this? Do they
> > > increase in width to accommodate a greater surface area and then become
> > > narrower?
> >
> > THey grow by spreading and shrink through subduction. Plates have a
> > fintie lifetime; they grow, they die. Continents as a result of their
> > buoyancy, don't subduct. It appears that the amount of continental
> > crust has been in approx. equilibrium for a billion years or so.
> >
> >
> > > We know that this was not a random process because most fit back
> together in
> > > a straight line.
> >
> > Only by kooks.
> >
> >
> > All this does not bode well for your gradual random
> > > hypothesis, I mean when you look at the facts of even the accepted
> paradigm.
> > > Are you going to give this a fair evaluation or just a few waves of the
> > > hand?
> >
> > Expanding Earth was given a fair hearing more than 40 years ago and was
> > found wanting.
> > > >
> > > > > How about putting his findings into the model that you like so much?
> > > > > You see the bottom line is that for PT to work you need to pass a
> small
> > > > > circle over a larger circle with both embedded in solid rock.
> > > > > As for your gradual hypothesis; we need proof, references, figures.
> > > >
> > > > What small circle is passing over what larger circle? As for
> references,
> > > > try googling "accreted terrain" and see what you get. This is hardly
> my
> > > > personal speculation. It's mainstream geology, and there is a huge
> > > > scientific literature on the topic. The entire west coast of North
> > > > America was not part of the continent during the Mesozoic.
> > > >
> > > > You may also want to consider that an expanding earth is physically
> > > > impossible.
> >
> > > Well I think that we have proven that PT is impossible also? If you look
> at
> > > recent graphics of the ocean bottoms you will see that they are formed
> of a
> > > mosaic of small (relative) cracks.
> >
> > You mean fracture zones?
> >
> >
> > This is not conducive to being formed by
> > > pushing against another plate by convection currents. buckling would be
> > > expected.
> >
> > Plates are part of the convecting system. When they converge there is
> > subduction, and one plate moves back into the Earth's interior. Plates
> > are 100-1000 times stiffer than the upper mantle and as a result
> > generally don't deform orgenically. THis why plates behaves as rigid
> > blocks, and when they fail, they fail in cracks.
> >
> >
> >
> > This reminds me of the icy moons of the outer planets with cracks,
> > > they tell me, caused by internal heating (of unknown cause) and
> expansion.
> >
> > In particular Europa, which is comprised of , in large measure, water
> > and water ice.
> >
> >
> > > So you see that expansion is not impossible?
> >
> > This is why you're out in space, Al. Expanding Earth theories require
> > anywhere from 20%-400% expansion. Even in the case of an icey
> > satellite, it is not more than a couple %. And expanison there is a
> > result of tidal dissipation and the resulting phase changes in the ice.
> >
> > Simply because small amounts of expansion can occur in icey satellites,
> > does not imply the Earth expands, and certainly not by 20%-400%.
> >
> > The Earth is not an icey satellite; it is a silicate body with an Fe,
> > Ni core. WHy would you expect it to behave like an icey satellite?
> >
> > Nobody ever said that small amounts of expansion were impossible under
> > any circumstances. However, we are talking about the Earth, yes? There
> > is no mechanism that can expand the Earth to the degree required by
> > EEers.
> >
> > If the EEers want to be taken seriously, all they have to do is show
> > unambiguous evidence for expansion, or come up with a mechanism for it.
> > Lacking those two things, it is in the scrap heap where it belongs.
> >
> > Stuart-you still have not answered the question!
> Explain the topology.
> Al
> >
Al, The topological argument was formulated on the basis of assumptions
that are not true. Meservey did not understand how continents were
created; that by and large they are cratons ( continental cores if you
will) plastered by exotic or accreted terranes.

I don't remember details about Merservy's paper (the topological
argument was brought up on sci.geo.geology some time ago ), but these
kinds of arguments generally stem from biogeography studies, and the
attempt to match areas with similar fauna togethar. A Wegnerian idea.
Not a bad idea at that.

The problem is when you try to match up pieces of one continent to
another you can be in serious peril if you assmme that the pieces
you're matching have always been part of the continent they are
currently attached too. Simply because the pieces may fit, doesn't mean
the rest of the continent was following along.

But EEer's won't go for this. Accumulation of exotic or accreted
terranes is accomplished through subduction, and that is an anathema
for a EEer.

Stuart

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Creationist Claim: No evidence that plates are still moving
    ... Do tectonic plates do this? ... Expanding Earth was given a fair hearing more than 40 years ago and was ... caused by internal heating and expansion. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Creationist Claim: No evidence that plates are still moving
    ... Do tectonic plates do this? ... > Expanding Earth was given a fair hearing more than 40 years ago and was ... >> So you see that expansion is not impossible? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Creationist Claim: No evidence that plates are still moving
    ... >>> Plates are part of the convecting system. ... However, we are talking about the Earth, yes? ... > The problem is when you try to match up pieces of one continent to ... This guy says that he has plotted the amount of water covered continent over ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: paleomagnetism and EE
    ... current continent sizes would be basically pure garbage. ... Maxlow wants for there to be a change in mass. ... Earth has always been considered static in size it has not been ... exponential expansion at the present rate of 21 mm/year, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: paleomagnetism and EE
    ... current continent sizes would be basically pure garbage. ... Maxlow wants for there to be a change in mass. ... Earth has always been considered static in size it has not been ... exponential expansion at the present rate of 21 mm/year, ...
    (talk.origins)