Wegener and Evidence for Continental Drift

Hi TC,This is a reply to all your recent posts. Sure it is, because Wegener already had evidence for an ancient earth. The way to look at flood geology is that it has negative evidence, because not only does it have no positive evidence, but to accept it requires ignoring known evidence, such as radiometric, paleomagnetic and stratigraphic data. Let's ask ourselves what kind of evidence would we expect to find if CPT were the more accurate model. Let's say the flood and CPT took place about 5000 years ago when Pangaea split into all the modern continents. So almost all the sea floor was formed very quickly around 5000 years ago, except that formed during the past 5000 years. We should therefore find a major line of demarkation on the sea floor corresponding to about 5000 years ago, with seafloor older than 5000 years having the appearance of very rapid formation, and that younger than 5000 years having the appearance of very slow formation.The current rate of sea floor formation is around 4 cm/year, so 5000 years of sea floor formation corresponds to about 200 meters from the oceanic ridges. So about 200 meters from oceanic ridges, give or take a 100 meters, the sea floor should contain a major discontinuity in its nature. No such difference has ever been reported.Let's now consider the sediment on the Atlantic sea floor between the mid-oceanic ridge and North America. If all but the 200 meters closest to the mid-oceanic ridge formed at roughly the same time about 5000 years ago, then the depth of sea floor sediment should be roughly the same for the entire distance up to within 200 meters of the ridge. But we instead find that the further you venture from the ridge the deeper the sediments become, indicating that increasing distance from the ridge corresponds to increasing sea floor age with a longer available timeframe in which to accumulate sediment. The sediment depth increases very gradually with no discontinuity 200 meters from the ridge.If most of the seafloor formed 5000 years ago then we would expect the sedimentary layers on the sea floor to date no older than 5000 years. What we instead find is sedimentary layers dating back not only 5000 years, but 10,000 years, 20,000 years, a million years, even a hundred million years. Not only that, but the age of a column of sediment increases gradually with depth, just as expected if the sediment was deposited over millions of years.So I have considered three pieces of evidence you would expect to find if CPT were the correct theory: a discontinuity 200 meters from oceanic ridges, a uniform sedimentary depth on the sea floor, and radiometric dates younger than 5000 years. In all cases we already know the answer. There is no discontinuity 200 meters or so from any ridge, sedimentary depth increases gradually and uniformly with distance from the ridge, and much of the sea floor is very old.--Percy

"Sure it is, because Wegener already had evidence for an ancient earth."
--Sure, but that doesn't contradict that the evidences that Wegener had for continental drift(the question at hand here) can just as easily be applied to catastrophic plate tectonics.

quote:

---

The way to look at flood geology is that it has negative evidence, because not only does it have no positive evidence, but to accept it requires ignoring known evidence, such as radiometric, paleomagnetic and stratigraphic data.

---

--All of what you list are dependent on radiometric data and the uniformitarian assumption--CPT proposes a violation of that assumption and radiometric data is thereofor equivocal evidence. but sure, you can argue all you want that it is 'evidence', it just doesn't shut any doors.

quote:

---

Let's ask ourselves what kind of evidence would we expect to find if CPT were the more accurate model. Let's say the flood and CPT took place about 5000 years ago when Pangaea split into all the modern continents. So almost all the sea floor was formed very quickly around 5000 years ago, except that formed during the past 5000 years. We should therefore find a major line of demarkation on the sea floor corresponding to about 5000 years ago, with seafloor older than 5000 years having the appearance of very rapid formation, and that younger than 5000 years having the appearance of very slow formation.

---

--All of the pre-flood oceanic lithosphere has been destroyed at its corresponding subduction zone.

quote:

---

The current rate of sea floor formation is around 4 cm/year, so 5000 years of sea floor formation corresponds to about 200 meters from the oceanic ridges. So about 200 meters from oceanic ridges, give or take a 100 meters, the sea floor should contain a major discontinuity in its nature. No such difference has ever been reported.

---

--Yes, but if mind serves me right, at those distances from the ridge it would be ridiculous to try and measure differences in sediment thickness on such a scale since virtually no sediment is deposited there. Assuming you could even accurately measure sediment deposited on such hellish terrain.http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/evcforum/sedthick.jpg"Let's now consider the sediment on the Atlantic sea floor between the mid-oceanic ridge and North America. If all but the 200 meters closest to the mid-oceanic ridge formed at roughly the same time about 5000 years ago, then the depth of sea floor sediment should be roughly the same for the entire distance up to within 200 meters of the ridge."
--Not really, sediment would be deposited much closer to its point of origin (closer to the continents) because there is is transported within the ocean water as a medium. Not only that but older sea-floor will have higher quantities of sediment. Also, subduction and plate collision will add sediments to convergent plate boundaries(creating something of an accretionary prism). Given the data from the illustration cited earlier, it doesn't come at much of a surprise to me."But we instead find that the further you venture from the ridge the deeper the sediments become, indicating that increasing distance from the ridge corresponds to increasing sea floor age with a longer available timeframe in which to accumulate sediment."
--Indeed."The sediment depth increases very gradually with no discontinuity 200 meters from the ridge."
--Why don't you go down there and see if you can find a discontinuity, in such sedimentary thicknesses? Please show me your data which indicate this."If most of the seafloor formed 5000 years ago then we would expect the sedimentary layers on the sea floor to date no older than 5000 years. What we instead find is sedimentary layers dating back not only 5000 years, but 10,000 years, 20,000 years, a million years, even a hundred million years. Not only that, but the age of a column of sediment increases gradually with depth, just as expected if the sediment was deposited over millions of years."
--Yup, just as expected if you had accelerated decay which has already been postulated. This is equivocal evidence as explained earlier in this post."So I have considered three pieces of evidence you would expect to find if CPT were the correct theory: a discontinuity 200 meters from oceanic ridges, a uniform sedimentary depth on the sea floor, and radiometric dates younger than 5000 years. In all cases we already know the answer. There is no discontinuity 200 meters or so from any ridge, sedimentary depth increases gradually and uniformly with distance from the ridge, and much of the sea floor is very old."
--The only one in there which could even be considered is the one regarding radioisotopic dating--but still, you know the answer to that one. Do you have something else besides things which are dependent on the uniformitarian assumption (namely, radiometric dating)?-------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-27-2003]

Here is a good link you can read through regarding measurable sediment thickness on the scale your talking about:http://www.ocean.cf.ac.uk/people/neil/seds/seds.html-------------------

quote:

---

--All of what you list are dependent on radiometric data and the uniformitarian assumption--CPT proposes a violation of that assumption and radiometric data is thereofor equivocal evidence. but sure, you can argue all you want that it is 'evidence', it just doesn't shut any doors.

---

This is exactly Percy's point. First, uniformitarianism gives us information that you insist on ignoring. Second, your model requires a 'violation of that assumption' and you don't really have anything FOR cpt. He does not ask you to 'shut doors'. He is asking you to open a single door for cpt.Besides, I think Wegener had mor data than most of us think. I will research this by next weekend if not tonight. I believe he did some research into corresponding rock types, tectonic terranes, and fossil assemblages on parts of the continents that the thought would have fit together.

quote:

---

--All of the pre-flood oceanic lithosphere has been destroyed at its corresponding subduction zone.

---

That's funny, because it sure isn't all destroyed according to field data...

quote:

---

--Yes, but if mind serves me right, at those distances from the ridge it would be ridiculous to try and measure differences in sediment thickness on such a scale since virtually no sediment is deposited there. Assuming you could even accurately measure sediment deposited on such hellish terrain.

---

Not at all. First, we have taken actual sample of water and rock from the hot springs vent. Second, not all parts of a ridge are as active as the hotspots. Most of the ridge is quite cold at any given time. And temperatures drop off suddenly in the near 0deg seawater.

quote:

---

What I meant is that the evidence FOR flood geology is weaker than that Wegener had.

--I don't think so because everything that Wegener had in his day is just fine with flood geology, to come up with just the littlest thing more isn't difficult either. But I thought you were looking for unequivocal evidences?

---

I really don't understand what you are trying to say. The issue is quite simple.
I claim that
1) The evidence that Wegener had for continental drift, at the time he proposed itis greater than2) The evidence for flood geology at the present time.This has been explained more than once (and it should have been clear from post 15)

quote:

---

Flood geology goes back to George MacReady Price in 1902 - that's more than 100 years.More than the 19 Wegener had - it's ten years before Wegener published.

--This isn't a good comparison, it isn't "flood geology vs. plate tectonics" mainstream geology has been in serious development more than 200 years, while we have had a magnitude less than that. 25 years ago we were still playing with the vapor canopy and walt browns hydroplate. To argue CPT vs mainstream PT would be better. I can count how many people have been doing serious work on CPT on my fingers. Besides, Wegener wasn't the first to conjure continental drift.

---

As I pointed out it is explicitly continental drift (NOT Plate tectonics) versus Flood geology - which was effectively founded by Price. That is the subject under discussion. It is widely recognised that Morris took a good deal from Price - and as I pointed out there was work done in between. I do not think that there is an equivalent for continental drift, although it was proposed earlier - and we could say that the basic ideas of flood geology were proposed earlier than Price. And even if we discount Price, there is still Grant who not only did geological research but also proposed an idea which to the best of my knowledge is still used in Flood geology.

quote:

---

And you claim that your CPT explains the same data - but does it ?

--The same data available to Wegener, yes.

---

In the post you were replying to I mentioned an example (the fossil evidence) - which you have deleted without answering. Since I have serious doubts about that piece of evidence which you have not addressed then I cannot accept your unsupported assertion, unless and until you produce a satisfactory response on that issue.

Look it is a fact that corrections were made (post 11 post 22 post 30, post 33), and that you persisted in your misunderstanding (post 34) I would add that post 36 contained a further correction and yet you still seem not to understand at post 41. Does that not qualify as ignoring corrections ?Even if you misunderstood the "at the time..." clause I cannot understand how you could miss the point that I explicitly compared evidence FOR continental Drift (NOT Plate Tectonics) with Flood Geology (NOT CPT).It is strange then that post 41 includes a conclusion I consider quite bizarre - that the point at issue was whether Wegener had evidence against flood geology - even though the statement at issue says nothing about evidence against flood geology at all. It really seems strange to issue a challenge on a statement without making reasonably sure of what it says.As for your second point we have yet another odd interpretationI state that you have not shown that the evidence does NOT favour CONVENTIONAL plate tectonics over CPT. Which is at the time of writing still true.You agree that you have asserted that the evidence is compatible with either and deny stating that the evidence supported CPT over plate tectonics. This is especially strange as I explicitly mention you claiming that the evidence was compatible with either to point out that that did not meet the actual challenge.However if the evidence Wegener had supported conventional plate tectonics over CPT then it would be the case that Wegener had more evidence for plate tectonics than for CPT. So it is a point that you would need to address if even your mistaken argument is to be shown correct (even though it quite clearly does not meet the challenge even with such a correction)

Hi TC,It amazes me that you never seem to tire of arguing for positions that have no evidence.How are you going to convince anyone that radiometric data should be ignored if you have no evidence for accelerated decay?How are you going to convince anyone that CPT is a viable option if there is no evidence for it? I never mentioned "the pre-flood oceanic lithosphere," but as long as you mention it, let me comment: All of it destroyed? Not even a teensy-weensy bit left over anywhere? Why, how convenient! And your evidence for this? Ancient sunken ships are nearly always found partially buried in sediments. 5000 years of sediments is plenty. You need better colors for your map of sediment thickness, because most of the depths are all the same color, and it's giving you the wrong impression of sediment thickness. Here's the link again: The problem is that most of the sediment depths in your depth key are the same color, mostly turquoise or red. Most of your map is turquoise, which ranges from 200 to 1000 feet, so naturually it looks to you like much of the sea floor has the same depth of sediment. The truth of the matter is that sediment depth increases gradually with increasing distance from oceanic ridges. Sediment depth does increase dramatically near continents - it's because of runoff and river deltas. Look at the heavy red at the delta for the Congo river, and if the Amazon and Mississippi were shown there'd probably be a lot of red there, too. And sediment depth *is* influenced by oceanic currents and distribution of flora/fauna. But in general sediment depth increases with increasing distance from oceanic ridges where sea floor forms, and this contradicts CPT. That's just it, TC, there is no discontinuity. If CPT were true then you would expect the sea floor that formed rapidly during CPT to look dramatically different from the sea floor that formed extremely slowly over the past 5000 years. What we see is that the sea floor has no sudden discontinuities at a 5000 year distance from oceanic ridges worldwide.I'm not surprised that I'm not convincing you. As I've told many others, you really shouldn't expect to convince anyone here. That's just not something that happens very often. But I am very surprised at your lack of concern about your inability to not only produce any evidence for your views, but not even postulate any evidence that we should search for that would show that CPT is the correct view.Come on, TC, think. What realistically obtainable evidence should we look for that if it were found would indicate that CPT is a more accurate description of the natural world than PT? I gave you three examples, but you don't like them because they all favor PT. So, come on, give us one of your own.--Percy

I look forward to seeing information on the fossil assemblages.While it the outline of what we would expect from conventional geology is pretty clear (similar fauna, diversifying as the continents seperate) I don't see what CPT would predict. Certainly if we assume that the fossils are more or less in the place where the original animals and plants lived we should expect CPT to predict that the similarities to be independant of the geological age assigned to the rocks - which would make continental drift a non-starter. But if we do not make such an assumption, what is the alternative ? All later fossils have been transported significant distances ? Should that not be apparent from the fossil record ? And even then why could they not be transported from locations that "belong" with the other continent ?And all this is in addition to the general problems the fossil record poses for Flood Geology - it is almost ironic since the existence of fossils is perhaps the most important reason why YECs need Flood Geology in the first place.

--[Edit] - If those who will resond to this post don't mind, please do not give me multiple massive posts in response. Address certain points you are interested in discussing if possible. I don't have as much time as I used to.All:--We've all misunderstood my bit on percy's argument for sedimentary thickness discontinuity. I supplied the image just as something extra, I have assumed and given the benefit of the doubt that we are all aware of the basics of marine geology, sedimentary thickness, and sediment transport in the oceans. Percy is arguing two things. First, that there should only be exponential decreases in sedimentary thickness(as you near the ridge axis) for the last ~5000 years(~200m) of sea-floor spreading and that all that produced previously(~2999.8km) should be relatively equal in thickness. I argue that this is incorrect for many reasons relevant to the veracity of his argument. 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. The only relevant sediments which will be deposited on the sea-floor at anywhere near our designated 200m mark will be from local flaura and fauna which is also insignificant until your talking about scales of km. Where is your data? because I have studied this sort of stuff more than you might think and I haven't seen it.--The other part of his argument is that sedimentary thickness should be relatively uniform for all of that produced during the course of CPT (and the spreading of the older bulk of the sea-floor) but his argument here is invalid as well. Sediments would in no way be uniform from CPT and rapid plate divergence. As explained before, the exponential thickening of sediments as you move away from the mid-ocean ridge is because they are originated from continents, unlike with pelatic sedimentary deposition. As the oceanic plates diverged, the distance between the continental crust and the mid-ocean ridge would increase as well as the amount of time available for sediment to pile.Edge:--No edge, that didn't seem like that was Percy's point because he wanted more evidence (thats why he considers sedimentary thickness to be good evidence all on its own)than just the example of radioisotopic dating.--Looking back at where I made my comment, "All of the pre-flood oceanic lithosphere has been destroyed at its corresponding subduction zone" I'm not sure why I made the statement, but it isn't wrong. Sure, with every continent to continent collision (eg, the himalayan orogenesis) there are going to be remnants of the previously existing ocean floor, but not a significant portion of its lithosphere.--I don't know where this came from:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edge.

​

Not at all. First, we have taken actual sample of water and rock from the hot springs vent. Second, not all parts of a ridge are as active as the hotspots. Most of the ridge is quite cold at any given time. And temperatures drop off suddenly in the near 0deg seawater.

---

PaulK:

quote:

---

I really don't understand what you are trying to say. The issue is quite simple.
I claim that
1) The evidence that Wegener had for continental drift, at the time he proposed it

​

is greater than

​

2) The evidence for flood geology at the present time.

​

This has been explained more than once (and it should have been clear from post 15)

---

--Again, not a good comparison, continental drift is a component of CPT and CPT is a component of flood geology. On the other hand, continental drift is a component of uniformitarian PT, and PT is a component of mainstream geology. So comparing the evidences for flood geology and for continental drift is going to put you in a ruckus.
--But if you think the evidence Wegener had for continental drift is greater than what we have for CPT, go for it, explain yourself away.

quote:

---

As I pointed out it is explicitly continental drift (NOT Plate tectonics) versus Flood geology - which was effectively founded by Price. That is the subject under discussion.

---

--It shouldn't be, I don't know why you brought it up.

quote:

---

It is widely recognised that Morris took a good deal from Price - and as I pointed out there was work done in between. I do not think that there is an equivalent for continental drift, although it was proposed earlier - and we could say that the basic ideas of flood geology were proposed earlier than Price. And even if we discount Price, there is still Grant who not only did geological research but also proposed an idea which to the best of my knowledge is still used in Flood geology.

---

--Morris doesn't do alot of good science, and thats what I am talking about, it hasent been till recently that many scientists which are YEC's have actually done some good research.

quote:

---

Look it is a fact that corrections were made (post 11 post 22 post 30, post 33), and that you persisted in your misunderstanding (post 34) I would add that post 36 contained a further correction and yet you still seem not to understand at post 41. Does that not qualify as ignoring corrections ?

---

--PaulK, by some aspects, I am still confused about you, but I've decided to forget it and just go by whatever new comes up in your and others posts. An example from your post #51:

quote:

---

"I explicitly compared evidence FOR continental Drift (NOT Plate Tectonics) with Flood Geology (NOT CPT)."

​

and then you say:

​

"I state that you have not shown that the evidence does NOT favour CONVENTIONAL plate tectonics over CPT."

​

--Damnit, which one is it we are discussing!?

---

quote:

---

You agree that you have asserted that the evidence is compatible with either and deny stating that the evidence supported CPT over plate tectonics.

---

--The evidence(available to wegener at that time) is compatible with either CPT or conventional continental drift theory/plate tectonics, yes. All of the evidence available today, I say, does not favour CPT over conventional uniformitarian PT though.

quote:

---

However if the evidence Wegener had supported conventional plate tectonics over CPT then it would be the case that Wegener had more evidence for plate tectonics than for CPT.

---

--Not if all he had at the time is compatible with current CPT theory.. which it is.Percipient:

quote:

---

How are you going to convince anyone that radiometric data should be ignored if you have no evidence for accelerated decay?

---

--I dunno, what kind of evidence would you expect? There is evidence from Venus and its global resurfacing explained in my article here:http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/.../Draft/initiation.htm--But that isn't unequivocal so I'm not going to go further just so that it could be ignored by stating that thats what it is(you incessantly say 'evidence', then I give you some, then all of a sudden say that it has to be unequivocal).

quote:

---

How are you going to convince anyone that CPT is a viable option if there is no evidence for it?

---

--If you change that to 'unequivocal evidence' I would then say 'I dunno' and proceed in asking you where in the world the unequivocal(because at the end of the day, thats the only kind your going to care about) evidence for uniformitarian PT is.

quote:

---

Ancient sunken ships are nearly always found partially buried in sediments. 5000 years of sediments is plenty.

---

--less than 200m from an ocean ridge? And its burried in exponentially thickening sediments (originating from the a perpendicular continental crust)? I don't think so.

quote:

---

The problem is that most of the sediment depths in your depth key are the same color, mostly turquoise or red. Most of your map is turquoise, which ranges from 200 to 1000 feet, so naturually it looks to you like much of the sea floor has the same depth of sediment.

---

--Percy, I never needed that illustration for me to assert anything I have asserted because I had done the studies beforehand. I merely cited it for your convenience.

quote:

---

Sediment depth does increase dramatically near continents - it's because of runoff and river deltas.

---

--No kidding?

quote:

---

But in general sediment depth increases with increasing distance from oceanic ridges where sea floor forms, and this contradicts CPT.

---

--This has not been substantiated. Why do you think pelagic sediments are practically all we find at the very bottom in older sea-floor which already has had a good deal of its oceanic lithosphere subducted? Because at the point of its formation and near its mid-ocean ridge, no sediment originating from the continental crust could get there until it neared the point of origin of those relevant sediments.

quote:

---

That's just it, TC, there is no discontinuity. If CPT were true then you would expect the sea floor that formed rapidly during CPT to look dramatically different from the sea floor that formed extremely slowly over the past 5000 years. What we see is that the sea floor has no sudden discontinuities at a 5000 year distance from oceanic ridges worldwide.

---

--Right, and there is no reason to think there would be.

quote:

---

I gave you three examples, but you don't like them because they all favor PT.

---

--Thats far from the reason that I don't 'like' them.

quote:

---

So, come on, give us one of your own.

---

--Unequivocal?? I don't have any, I explained this earlier. Sure there is abundant 'evidence' but not the kind that at the end of the day, you will care about.PaulK:

quote:

---

While it the outline of what we would expect from conventional geology is pretty clear (similar fauna, diversifying as the continents seperate) I don't see what CPT would predict.

---

--It would predict...the same thing! What have you been reading on CPT?

quote:

---

Certainly if we assume that the fossils are more or less in the place where the original animals and plants lived we should expect CPT to predict that the similarities to be independant of the geological age assigned to the rocks

---

--Not necessarily, while in the YECist view radioisotopic dating does not indicate ages as given by the analysis from uniformitarian assumptions--it does represent a chronology. So as sediments were layed down, there would be an appearence of age with depth.

quote:

---

All later fossils have been transported significant distances ?

---

--No.-------------------http://www.oysi.promisoft.net[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-28-2003][This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-28-2003][This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-28-2003]

quote:

---

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.

---

Haven't you just contradicted yourself? First, you say that sea-floor sediments are due to runoff from the continents. Ok, for the sake of argument. Next, you say that these sediments DO NOT travel rapidly enough to reach the mid-oceanic ridges in the time frame of YEC. However, there is sediment very near the ridges, so if all the sediment is from the continents it must have travelled these distances.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

"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."Ok, for the sake of argument. Next, you say that these sediments DO NOT travel rapidly enough to reach the mid-oceanic ridges in the time frame of YEC."
--Well, its not that they travel 'rapidly enough', its just that they don't get there, period(at least not in any significant measurable quantity). I made a reference to time because it takes time for sea-floor spreading to bring the aging sea-floor to a place where such deposition could become relevant and measurable."However, there is sediment very near the ridges, so if all the sediment is from the continents it must have travelled these distances."
--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.------------------

Percy is arguing no such thing. Do you know what "exponential" means? The word you're looking for, or at least the word that is correct, is "linear". Assuming that on average over the past 5000 years sedimentation rates have been relatively constant, sedimentation depth would have increased linearly with time and with distance from the ridge, not exponentially.But I understand your point nonetheless, which is that sediment rates in mid-ocean near oceanic ridges are so low that after 5000 years there would not be any measurable sediments. There are several problems with this position:

• While there may be little to no sea life on the sea floor at great depths in mid-ocean, all kinds of sea life live in the upper layers. The excretions and corpses of this sea life all descend to the sea floor as sediment. Except where deep sea currents scour the sea floor, there *will* be sediment, even after only 5000 years.
  ​
• Sediment depth *does* increase with increasing distance from the oceanic ridge where the sea floor is created. There are other factors, sure, like ocean currents and variable flora/fauna concentrations, but in general sediment depth increases with increasing distance from oceanic ridges. This contradicts CPT.
  ​
• There should be a significant difference in the structure and appearance of sea floor formed at the rate of miles/day as compared to that formed at the rate of a few yards/century. We see no such difference, and this also contradicts CPT.

Moving on: You must have me confused with someone else, TC, because you've never presented any evidence for any of your positions that I'm aware of, and so I've never had the opportunity to tell you that your evidence is not "unequivocal", or any other name for that matter. You keep harping on this "unequivocal" point in the rest of your message as an excuse to not address any of my points, but if you do a search across all forums for "unequivocal" for user "Percipient" you'll see I've never used the word in discussion with you.So come on, TC, address the issues. What evidence do you have supporting accelerated decay? What evidence do you have supporting CPT? What evidence should we look for that would lend support to either of these ideas?--Percy

quote:

---

Percy is arguing no such thing. Do you know what "exponential" means? The word you're looking for, or at least the word that is correct, is "linear". Assuming that on average over the past 5000 years sedimentation rates have been relatively constant, sedimentation depth would have increased linearly with time and with distance from the ridge, not exponentially.

---

--Yes, this is what I meant, thanks for the correction.

quote:

---

While there may be little to no sea life on the sea floor at great depths in mid-ocean, all kinds of sea life live in the upper layers. The excretions and corpses of this sea life all descend to the sea floor as sediment. Except where deep sea currents scour the sea floor, there *will* be sediment, even after only 5000 years.

---

--Please give us this data then, because I've never seen any which would favour your argument on this.

quote:

---

Sediment depth *does* increase with increasing distance from the oceanic ridge where the sea floor is created. There are other factors, sure, like ocean currents and variable flora/fauna concentrations, but in general sediment depth increases with increasing distance from oceanic ridges. This contradicts CPT.

---

--No, it doesn't, it is entirely expected. I explained this in post #53.

quote:

---

There should be a significant difference in the structure and appearance of sea floor formed at the rate of miles/day as compared to that formed at the rate of a few yards/century. We see no such difference, and this also contradicts CPT.

---

--Please elaborate on this.

quote:

---

You must have me confused with someone else, TC, because you've never presented any evidence for any of your positions that I'm aware of, and so I've never had the opportunity to tell you that your evidence is not "unequivocal", or any other name for that matter. You keep harping on this "unequivocal" point in the rest of your message as an excuse to not address any of my points, but if you do a search across all forums for "unequivocal" for user "Percipient" you'll see I've never used the word in discussion with you.

---

--It may not have been you. But I would predict your argument on such grounds if I were to give you 'evidence' period.

quote:

---

So come on, TC, address the issues. What evidence do you have supporting accelerated decay?

---

--What do you think about the venusian evidence I discuss in my article?

quote:

---

What evidence do you have supporting CPT?

---

--Just explain to me one thing about this question and I will give you a straight answer; what kind of evidence do you want and what part of catastrophic plate tectonics do you want evidence for?-------------------

quote:

---

Percy states:

​

There should be a significant difference in the structure and appearance of sea floor formed at the rate of miles/day as compared to that formed at the rate of a few yards/century. We see no such difference, and this also contradicts CPT.

​

TC states:

​

--Please elaborate on this.

---

Have a look at this image on the NOAA site. (BTW, you can zoom in on that picture.)Now, of course, since I believe you have a problem with mainstream dating methods, you would have to calibrate the dating scheme used by NOAA to your own timescale. After that, and based on the age-relations observed, you should be able to pick the spot where the continents went from traveling across the ocean from several miles per day to today's rates (and that of the last 5,000 years) of a few cm/mm per year. Seeing as that is a HUGE difference in velocity, you should have no problems doing so.To advance the theory further, you would also need to present corroborating sediment thickness maps as well as structural and/or topographic data. Furthermore, all this data would need to adequately explain continental tectonics, ore deposits, oil accumulations, among a host of many other things.But let's start out quick and easy by simply seeing your physical evidence for CPT.[This message has been edited by roxrkool, 05-28-2003][This message has been edited by roxrkool, 05-28-2003][This message has been edited by roxrkool, 05-28-2003]

quote:

---

quote:

---

I really don't understand what you are trying to say. The issue is quite simple. I claim that
1) The evidence that Wegener had for continental drift, at the time he proposed it

​

is greater than

​

2) The evidence for flood geology at the present time.

​

This has been explained more than once (and it should have been clear from post 15)

---

​

--Again, not a good comparison, continental drift is a component of CPT and CPT is a component of flood geology. On the other hand, continental drift is a component of uniformitarian PT, and PT is a component of mainstream geology. So comparing the evidences for flood geology and for continental drift is going to put you in a ruckus.

---

Actually this is not a problem. The evidence for continental drift - as I have pointed out - does not in itself support Flood Geology. So essentially you are still in the position of denying that Wegener had evidence for continental drift or producing evidence that is FOR Flood Geology. If you want to use CPT rather than looking at issues like sedimentation or fossils (where we should reasonably expect to find evidence that a global Flood produced a large chunk of this material in a period of a year) then you need to produce evidence for CPT over conventional plate tectonics.

quote:

---

--But if you think the evidence Wegener had for continental drift is greater than what we have for CPT, go for it, explain yourself away.

---

Of course as you know you are the one who raised CPT. I explicitly mentioned Flood Geology. And so far it seems to be agreed that I actually said is true - unless you HAVE evidence for Flood Geology ?.

quote:

---

quote:

---

As I pointed out it is explicitly continental drift (NOT Plate tectonics) versus Flood geology -which was effectively founded by Price. That is the subject under discussion.

---

​

--It shouldn't be, I don't know why you brought it up.

---

Why should it not be the subject under discussion ?You challenged me to start a thread to discuss it.I did indeed start this thread to discuss it.So of course it should be the topic of discussion on this thread.There is simply no doubt about it. I cannot see how anyone could honestly suggest otherwise.If you don't want to discuss it then I suggest that you admit I was correct - or at the least that you cannot meet the challenge you issued - and ask for the thread to be closed, since the topic is done with. Other issues may be continued in other threads, of course.

quote:

---

quote:

---

It is widely recognised that Morris took a good deal from Price - and as I pointed out there was work done in between. I do not think that there is an equivalent for continental drift, although it was proposed earlier - and we could say that the basic ideas of flood geology were proposed earlier than Price. And even if we discount Price, there is still Grant who notonly did geological research but also proposed an idea which to the best of my knowledge is still used in Flood geology.

---

​

--Morris doesn't do alot of good science, and thats what I am talking about, it hasent been till recently that many scientists which are YEC's have actually done some good research.

---

Which means that you are discounting Grant - for no reason I can see, as well as the ICR graduate program, and no doubt other creationist geologists such as Steve Austin (who was active for some time under the nome de plume of "Stuart Nevins" before he openly announced that he was a creationist). That's a pretty damning criticism of "Creation Science".

quote:

---

quote:

---

Look it is a fact that corrections were made (post 11 post 22 post 30, post 33), and that you persisted in your misunderstanding (post 34) I would add that post 36 contained a further correction and yet you still seem not to understand at post 41. Does that not qualify as ignoring corrections ?

---

​

--PaulK, by some aspects, I am still confused about you, but I've decided to forget it and just go by whatever new comes up in your and others posts. An example from your post #51:

quote:

---

"I explicitly compared evidence FOR continental Drift (NOT Plate Tectonics) with Flood Geology(NOT CPT)."

---

​

and then you say:

quote:

---

"I state that you have not shown that the evidence does NOT favour CONVENTIONAL plate tectonics over CPT."

---

​

--Damnit, which one is it we are discussing!?

---

Simply reading my statements in context should help you on that one. Recognising that side topics come up in discussion should also help.The first deals with the primary topic of discussion - explaining it yet again.The second deals with a side issue intorduced in post 40. In addition to pointing out that you were not arguing against the statement the challenge is concerned with, the argument that you DID make still rested on an assertion which has yet to be substantiated and which I have reason to doubt (item 3 in post 40).Read post 40 again if you still do not understand. Follow the replies.It should be quite clear.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You agree that you have asserted that the evidence is compatible with either and deny stating that the evidence supported CPT over plate tectonics.

---

​

--The evidence(available to wegener at that time) is compatible with either CPT or conventional continental drift theory/plate tectonics, yes. All of the evidence available today, I say, does not favour CPT over conventional uniformitarian PT though.

​

quote:

---

However if the evidence Wegener had supported conventional plate tectonics over CPT then it would be the case that Wegener had more evidence for plate tectonics than for CPT.

---

--Not if all he had at the time is compatible with current CPT theory.. which it is.

---

All you are doing here is repeating your assertion and then - so far as I can tell - begging the qestion. Perhaps you can tell me why the evidence should be considered equal if it supported one hypothesis over another. Surely we must admit that the hypothesis with greater support has more evidence.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 05-28-2003][This message has been edited by PaulK, 05-28-2003][This message has been edited by PaulK, 05-28-2003]