A scientific theory for creation

Re The Bible CodeThanks for the website on the Bible Code.
I only finished reading Drosnin's book late last night and must confess to have been taken in by it. I had no idea that it had received the refutation it has. I wished I had not mentioned it on this site. Its good to know that many of those who oppose Drosnins book still believe that the Bible has a Divine origin and that remains my view. But perhaps its best for me to make no further contributions to this site.

Thanks for your interest and comments these past few days. But in view of the clanger I dropped earlier on this morning I am sure you will understand that the only decent thing for me to do now is to retire from this site.

Thanks very much for your encouraging words. I certainly have learnt a lesson of putting too much blind faith in something (Drosnins book in this case) only because it seemed to support my faith in the Bible.I am sorry if it appears that I do not want to answer your questions. The problem is simply that my model for start of the solar system, the formation of the earth and its oceans and continents etc is substantially different from the mainstream science models. For me to answer your questions fully would mean rewriting my book almost completely on this site. For this reason in my very first message of this discussion I offered to send a free copy to members of this site who want to see what I have to say. This offer is still open and only requuires an e mail with a fowarding address. As you live in the States it will take about a week to come if I send it by air mail.
So you have absolutely nothing to lose by flicking through the relevant pages that deal with the questions you ask. Obviusly if you
dont agree with what I am saying or if what I have said is untrue or unclear then I will be more than happy to retract/change/expand etc.Leander

The Publishers are New Wine Ministries.
They do a lot of books from relatively unknown authors like myself whereby they act as distributors but pay the author on a previously agreed price which is generally much better than the usual royalties basis. The downside of this is that the author pays the production
costs to the Publisher. Some books do extremely well and the production costs are recuperated when only about 500 copies are sold.
Other books dont even recuperate the production costs. My first book
did surprisingly well but the second one is struggling. I think it is just too technical for most Christians and ofcourse non Christians are not interested in it. But I am glad to say all production costs have been met one way or other. For details of the publisher see the books website http://www.btinternet.com/~pimenta/

(LRPs Reply to Message 47)Fine-then lets start at some fundamentals.Do you agree that there is a shell of basaltic rock that surrounds the whole Earth and forms a 'cracked' and patched up sphere?. It is hidden below the oceans and by continents but we know its there. Its thickness is also very great-tens of kilometers perhaps-may be you can put a more precise figure to this.Do you also agree that below this shell is a softer layer called the asthenosphere?Do you further agree that the continental crust is more granitic and has a lower average density than the basaltic crust?If you can affirm these statements we can proceed to the next stage
If not lets see where we differ.

I am glad you agree-as I said all my facts come from mainstream geology anyway but its the interpretation that is different as you will see as we proceed.Am I right that one of the assumptions in plate tectonics is that
movement of the plates is due to drag effects of currents in the asthenosphere?Am I also right that below the continental crust there is a discontinuity of sorts called the Moho discontunity? and that below this discontunity we are back on the basaltic or oceanic lithosphere?

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.

My model for continental drift requires a basaltic shell that forms a thick sphere right round the globe. The supercontinent Pangaea sits on top of this shell and depresses it by several miles which is why the Moho discontunity is only about 6kM below the oceanic crust but 32kM below the continental crust. My book explains how the Moho discontunity was formed excapt that I called it the asthenosphere.My difficulty with the mainstream science model for continental drift are
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.
3. I cannot see how essentially granitic continents were formed from an essentially basaltic lithosphere.
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.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. But even with my model there is no way of timing the event.Perhaps you can put me right on the mainstream science model for continental drift if my understanding is not adequate.

Yes I do agree with those parts of mainstream science that makes sense to me. My post was on aspects which do not make sense.I am not a Geologist by profession but work in a related field and mix with real Geologists all the time. But I have to say it has been difficult to find Geologists who really want to consider alternative explanations. Before my last post I did manage a conversation with an MSc graduate in Geology from a university renowned for its work on plate techtonics. He understood and shared the difficulties I have with the model. So it seems having done a course in Geology would have not made any difference!Isochron dating is from from cooling episodes not heating episodes. I used 'heating' in error.Sorry

Extensive studies on currents in the upper mantle?
I was hoping you would have told me how these were detected.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.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. And even if this did not happen there would be nothing but a 4000m deep ocean covering the globe.Not melting episodes but cooling. My mistake. See post above.

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.I am none the wiser about the way you time the drifting apart of continents. Maybe its because I dont wish to abandon my own theory
and have blinded myself. But I am trying to see believe me.

I am still none the wiser.Polar wandering can be explained by my theory as to how the Earth was formed so the information you supply fits in with my theory perfectly.The simple truth is that the continents were once all joined up in a supercontinent and has broken up since and indivoiodual continents have been free to rotate and slide about-which is what you are indicating and which I agree with completely.You say continents arose by fractionating from a molten Earth I say they did not. We are both dealing with different theories and you are quite at liberty to cling on to yours. My book gives a very different theory for the origin of the supercontinent and so far
no one as come up with a single fact to prove my theory wrong.
All I seem to get is the defence of existing theories.There is no need to get personal in this discussion. As a university lecturer I encourage my students to ask questions and there is in my vocabulary no such thing as a silly question. I certainly dont tell my students to go back to school if they appear not to understand a point. Often they ask because they can see beyond that point.

I spent much time in thinking about your last post. I even popped in to the University to talk to someone I work with who has a Masters degree in Geology. But he like me could not see how paleomagnetism
and radiometric dating help in finding the answer to my original question which is how do we know WHEN the continents drifted apart.
The relic magnetism in a piece of rock could tell us its latitude and orientation when the rock cooled and radiometric dating could give us a radiometric age for the same sample. So it seems that if the rock was in a certain latitude say 200million years ago but is in a different latitude now then your argument seems to be that drifting started immediately after the onset of cooling. But if drifting to its present latitude occurred say a million years ago or even few thousand years ago would this change the relic magnetism or radiometric date? Perhaps you can help the both of us.I dont doubt that the continents have moved but I still dont understand how you can tell us when. And neither could my university
geologist friend.
Also in my model for the formation of the continents radiometric dating is inapplicable-but thats a different issue.

I am grateful for the time you have put into this sticking pointI 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.If I had a million dollars to determine as accurately as I could WHEN South America broke away from western Africa could you please tell me what tests I could carry out to determine for myself when this started to happen and when South America got to its present location. ( I have the Fourth Edition of Holmes Principles of Physical Geology besides me as I write)

I am grateful for the time you have put into this sticking pointI 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.If I had a million dollars to determine as accurately as I could WHEN South America broke away from western Africa could you please tell me what tests I could carry out to determine for myself when this started to happen and when South America got to its present location. ( I have the Fourth Edition of Holmes Principles of Physical Geology besides me as I write)