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


Al wrote:
> "Stuart" <bigdakine@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1125800198.274330.187900@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Al wrote:
> > > "Stuart" <bigdakine@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > news:1125782795.541863.311350@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > > > > finite 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 icy
> > > > > > satellite, it is not more than a couple %. And expansion there is
> a
> > > > > > result of tidal dissipation and the resulting phase changes in the
> > > ice.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Simply because small amounts of expansion can occur in icy
> satellites,
> > > > > > does not imply the Earth expands, and certainly not by 20%-400%.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Earth is not an icy satellite; it is a silicate body with an
> Fe,
> > > > > > Ni core. Why would you expect it to behave like an icy 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 terrains.
> > >
> > > How do you know if you have not read the paper?
> >
> > Didn't say I didn't read it. I read it 3years ago. Forgot about it.
> > > >
> > > > 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 together. A Wegnerian idea.
> > > > Not a bad idea at that.
> >
> > > India?
> >
> > India collided with Asia some 40my ago. One wonders how contintents
> > collide on an expanding Earth.
> >
> > >
> > > You are waffling. This has nothing to do with biogeography, it's basic,
> it's
> > > mathematics and logic.
> >
> > In this case you're right (not about the waffling). I went back to
> > sci.geo and refreshed my memory circa 2002. The EEers were fond of this
> > passage in particular:
> >
> > "The perimeter of the Pacific must have at some time enclosed at least
> > half
> > of the earth's area in order to pass over the earth's circumference (
> > as we
> > go back in time) and be assembled on the opposite of the earth. thus
> > there
> > is no topologically possible transformation of the continents on an
> > earth of
> > the present size from their present positions to even approximately the
> > (
> > predrift) positions if we accept the constraints on the perimeter."
> >
> > Well at one time Panthalassa did cover over half the Earth. And then
> > it shrunk. EEer's are big on the "ocean opening" aspect, not on the
> > closing aspect.
> >
> > Essentially it seems Merservy (not incorrectly) viewed continental
> > dispersal is an inside-outing process, where the continental boundaries
> > become the interiors of future continents and super-continents. The
> > Pacific is shrinking and the Atlantic is growing.
> >
> > Where he fouled up was understanding what happened to Panthalassa.
> >
> > You should look at Scotese's maps. You can see what happens to
> > Panthalassa through time.
> >
> > Hope that clears things up for you.

Guess AL had no response.

> >
> > > >
> > > > The problem is when you try to match up pieces of one continent to
> > > > another you can be in serious peril if you assume that the pieces
> > > > you're matching have always been part of the continent they are
> > > > currently attached too.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes I know. Alaska is a good example, but this still has nothing to do
> with
> > > the question.
> > >
> > > 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
> > > > terrains is accomplished through subduction, and that is an anathema
> > > > for a EEer.
> > >
> > > This is not surprising as they are EEers.
> >
> >
> > Thats fine. But when you ignore reality, you quickly find yourself
> > going down the wrong path.
> >
> > > Why are you so opposed to continental fits?
> >
> > Who said I was opposed?
> >
> > > I think it's still an item in textbook geology and one of Wagener's
> ideas.
> > > From what I have seen, on a smaller earth the land masses fit
> > > together quite well.
> >
> > Indeed. I can put the laws of physics in abeyance and accomplish any
> > thing I want. Since the land masses only occupy some 25% of the Earth's
> > surface, one can certainly figure out ways to shrink the planet, this
> > way and that, and obtaind something reasonable. Thats the game all
> > EEer's employ to one degree or another.
> >
> > Likewise when you then expand it, how do you get India ramming Asia?
> > Perhaps you'd care to comment on that?

I guess AL had no comment on that either.

> >
> > > Egyed.l :Determination of Changes in the Dimensions of the Earth from
> > > Paliogeographical Data "Nature, 178,534, 1956
> > > This guy says that he has plotted the amount of water covered continent
> over
> > > time to the start of the Palaeozoic.
> > > The amount of water cover increases with inverse time and he uses this
> to
> > > show that earth was smaller in the geo-past.
> >
> > OK Al. Please explain to us how Egyed did his calculation, what were
> > his working assumptions and what data did he use. I wager you are using
> > another reference you don't understand.
>
> Hi Stu
> I am interested in anomalies, this is what I do. Just as interesting is the
> reaction
> of people like you when confronted with said anomalies.

No Al, what is interesting is the reaction of people like you when
there alledged anomalies are refuted. You have no comment. You have no
comment on my simple, answer to Merservy's argument. You have no
reponse to my pointing out that India's collision with Asia is
inconsistent with Earth Expansion.

What you do is cherry irrelevant old literature without understanding
that those arguments were presented and eventually discarded.

Unlike me, who has demolished your alledged anomalies, it is you who
ignore anomalies, like India's collision with Asia, easily explained by
PT, yet incongruous with Earth Expansion.

You self-styled kook defenders of "science" have nothing of value to
contribute.





> As a scientist you expect to be believed without question.

No I expect people not to ply me with tired, worn-out bullshit.

> IMHO this is wrong and I will continue to advocate that people think for
> themselves.

Al, when you start thinking for yourself, then you can encourage
others.

> Do you have a problem with this? Do you think that what I am doing is
> somehow
> not the thing to do?
> I am not even the opposition. I just point out were your theories do not
> make sense.

I just point out why your objections don't hold water, and you seem
unable to find your voice when that happens.


> As an engineer, I know about materials under stress.

If you're an engineer, I'm Atilla the Hun.

> The ocean bottom pictures are not stressed as you say they are.

I haven't said anything about the stress fields in the plates. So I
have no idea what you're on about.

> Pushing a brittle material will not produce this pattern, pressure from
> beneath will.

You have no idea as to how trsnaform faults, fracutre zones, ridges
form etc.


> The references that I have presented are a small sample of what is
> available.

LOL.

THis is classic kookdom.. I can come up with all sorts of "anomalies"
I'm sure your supply of bullshit is seemingly endless.


Al, either explain why my answer to Merservy's topological argument is
wrong and how India's collision with Asia is consistent with EE.

If you can't do that. Our conversations end here.

Stuart

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Searching for Theia, the mother of the Moon
    ... Oh, I see, they assumed that the spin of the Earth would be affected ... if all of the continents piled up on one side of the globe. ... possibly a lot of water locked up in ice. ... America through the shallow seas of the Bering Straits. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Owens Two-Phase Model of Earth Expansion
    ... You're claiming earth expansion, ... > If you're saying that cratons were the initial continents, ... >> Unless, of course, the original ocean basins were formed from impact basins. ... >> evidence to support either slow or fast hypothesis. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Early Earth Wasnt So Hellish
    ... Earth was a hellish planet barren of continents. ... from outback Australia and found evidence that a fringe theory detailing the ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Owens Two-Phase Model of Earth Expansion
    ... It may well be that there has been some growth of continents through ... If the ocean basins were added later, ... > that there have been oceans on the planet at least since after it cooled to the ... That the earth had such sinks nearly from it's ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Attempt to save GR seems to have faltered
    ... Since the earth is rotating, the magnetic field of the earth is ... cause a spacecraft to accelerate if the spacecraft was moving slower ... of possible explanations for the Earth flyby anomalies, ... counters - general relativity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)