A scientific theory for creation

"Sorry for the delay in replying. I have just spent about 90 minutes
giving a detailed reply only to lose it all by accident.
I will try again tomorrow as it is now getting quite late. "
--Do so when ready. I don't know where any of this information you've given will support your hypothesis, they are all measured properties.------------------

"1. I cannot see how currents in the upper mantle are sufficiently strong to drag the plates and why they act in opposite directions at
and at right angles to the line where new sea floor is being created.
2. I cannot see the currents as strong enough to cause any movement of the intact lithosphere."
--You do know there are extensive studies done on this in the appropriate geophysical resources?"3. I cannot see how essentially granitic continents were formed from an essentially basaltic lithosphere."
--After studying the geochemical structure of hot-spot & subduction volcanism, mid ocean basalts, and continents, it becomes indicative that they were formed by differentiation processes. That is to say, the early earth was molten and the continents were formed by geochemical fractionation of incompatible elements. That this has happened is well founded."4. The magnetic stripes on either side of a ridge where new sea floor is being created show reversals in polarity. I understand this reversal in polarity is detectable in land rocks which can be dated by isochron radiometric dating techniques. And hence the argument is that the magnetic stripes is also a measure of time. I find it difficult to accept this assumption because I dont think we know what causes a reversal of polarity and also because reversals would have to coincide with melting episodes if isochron dating is to be used."
--What do you mean the reversals should 'coincide with melting episodes'? If temperatures rise above the rock's curie temperature, remnant magnetism will be erased. There are several classes of paleomagnetism by which magnetic orientations can be acquired.--[edit] - Paleomagnetism on the continents and at spreading ridges can be contrasted and assuming superposition (a very reasonable assumption..) that this is evidence for spreading is inferred because of their correlation."My model for continental drift is very simple and follows on from how I think the supercontinent was formed. In my model the deep sea trenches and oceanic ridges are not consequences of continental drift but of continent formation."
--Then how do you explain the seismic studies of subduction zones as well as geotherms of subducting plates without the subduction?------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-25-2003]

"Extensive studies on currents in the upper mantle?
I was hoping you would have told me how these were detected."
--You mean thermal mantle convection? Well seeing as the mantle behaves as a fluid (from measurements in mountain ranges and their low density roots. Hydrostatic equilibrium calls for this fluid behavior). This solid-state creep process is also called for to explain observations of post-glacial rebound. The earth has a surface heat flow and therefore thermal mantle convection should occur to transport heat. Since the mantle behaves as a fluid, convection will take place. That convection occurs is further supported by the many geomorphologic observations we see, including subduction trenches, mid ocean ridges, hydrostatic equilibrium of continents, paleomagnetism[as discussed earlier], etc."I cannot agree with the a theory that continents were formed by geochemical fractionation on an early molten earth. Continents are on one side of the globe only. If the theory was correct we would expect islands dotted all over the globe."
--With that comes plate tectonics & continental drift. The continents move and haven't been in their present position forever."The theory that the earth was once in a fully molten state does not make much sense to me. If it were so what stopped it from becoming flattened to a disc due to its rotation."
--Rotation probably would have had to have been much faster to overcome gravitational pull (even though we don't have a perfectly spherical earth) Do you have the mathematics to support your suspicion?"And even if this did not happen there would be nothing but a 4000m deep ocean covering the globe."
--No, isostasy would say differently. This would have been true if the earth were homologous, but due to geochemical fractionation, it isn't.-------------------

"I forgot to answer a question about seismic activity and volcanism near subduction zones. I acknowledge (if I did not before) that the plates have moved to a certain extent. This is in entire agreement with my theory as to how the plates were formed and why the plates have moved. We are debating the mechanism and dating of the movement. Not the facts and consequences of their movement."
--Why did they move in your scenario? And how were they formed? Explain breifly your explanation regarding what we are arguing.-------------------

"I fully accept that the continents have moved so I am not sure why you had to tell me so much about the evidence for their movement."
--Because you apparently hypothesize that the continents came from a single mass. However, paleomagnetism in the continents is vertically proportional to sea floor spreading paleomagnetism. Thus, as the sea floor spread, the continents were built vertically by sedimentation and other mechanisms.-------------------