Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A scientific theory for creation
LRP
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 76 (30199)
01-25-2003 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Percy
01-25-2003 3:20 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Percy, posted 01-25-2003 3:20 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by TrueCreation, posted 01-25-2003 6:00 PM LRP has not replied
 Message 64 by Percy, posted 01-25-2003 7:17 PM LRP has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 76 (30200)
01-25-2003 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by LRP
01-25-2003 5:31 PM


"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.
-------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by LRP, posted 01-25-2003 5:31 PM LRP has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 76 (30201)
01-25-2003 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by LRP
01-25-2003 5:42 PM


"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.
-------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by LRP, posted 01-25-2003 5:42 PM LRP has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 64 of 76 (30206)
01-25-2003 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by LRP
01-25-2003 5:42 PM


LRP writes:
I am none the wiser about the way you time the drifting apart of continents.
The layers are dated radiometrically. The direction of magnetization of the layer tells where latitudinally on the planet the layer was when it cooled, as well as it's orientation.
When the paleomagnetic data was first being gathered and correlated it was realized that they indicated the continents had not always been at the same latitude with respect to the magnetic pole, and two possibilities were considered: a) the poles drift; b) the continents drift. The question was quickly resolved when it was discovered that paleomagnetic data from different continents indicated different polar wanderings. Locking the poles for all the continents together at a single point become the only way to make sense of the data, and once that was done the resulting derived continental motions just happened to agree with Wegener's proposals.
Wouldn't it make more sense to make up your mind after you knew this instead of before?
By the way, about the rotating earth turning oval, a couple points. First, the earth is an oblate spheroid - it bulges at the equator. Second, the earth is plastic on a planetary scale and bulges just as much now as it would were it molten.
One last thing. Your geologist friend must be humoring you. The level of sophistication of the questions you're raising is gradeschool stuff, and not only would any graduate in geology know the answers, many with a scientific bent would, too.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by LRP, posted 01-25-2003 5:42 PM LRP has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by LRP, posted 01-29-2003 3:05 AM Percy has replied

  
LRP
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 76 (30519)
01-29-2003 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Percy
01-25-2003 7:17 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Percy, posted 01-25-2003 7:17 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Andya Primanda, posted 01-29-2003 5:12 AM LRP has not replied
 Message 68 by Percy, posted 01-29-2003 8:59 AM LRP has replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 76 (30532)
01-29-2003 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by LRP
01-29-2003 3:05 AM


quote:
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.
The Pangaea existed some time before the Triassic period (ca. 300mya?). But prior to that, wasn't there separate continents?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by LRP, posted 01-29-2003 3:05 AM LRP has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 68 of 76 (30556)
01-29-2003 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by LRP
01-29-2003 3:05 AM


LRP writes:
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 individual continents have been free to rotate and slide about - which is what you are indicating and which I agree with completely.
You're leaving contradictions all over the place. First you say, "I am none the wiser about the way you time the drifting apart of continents" (Message 61), but after I explain it you say it is something you already "agree with completely." My suspicion that you're playing games hasn't dampened.
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.
Actually, I haven't said anything about how the continents formed. We were talking about continental drift. If you recall, way back in Message 37 you said this about continental drift:
The real answer is a circular arguement-I wanted you you show me the way out of that arguement. Until I can get a satisfactory answer from anyone I will stick to what the Bible tells me in very plain words - the continents moved apart with human life on board. Give me evidence (not theory) to show this is a lie and I will weigh up that evidence with the same scale I use for any other evidence.
So here is this information once again:
The layers are dated radiometrically, while the direction of magnetization of the layer tells where latitudinally on the planet the layer was when it cooled, as well as it's orientation. This tells us that the continents have been drifting for billions of years, long before man ever populated the planet.
It also indicates that your theory is contradicted by the evidence.
There is no need to get personal in this discussion.
Personal? Are you talking about when I told you that your geologist friend was humoring you and that your questions were grade school stuff? That's simply a fact. Your geologist friend *must* already know this stuff because its in all the introductory textbooks for geology. You don't have to take my word for it, check any intro to geology textbook you like. The grade school reference wasn't meant to be literal, but you're asking questions about simple things that can be easily looked up, and that certainly someone with his own theory would already know. And then it turns out, wonder of wonders, you *did* already know it, just as I've been saying.
Perhaps the problem is that you're drawing your explanation out across too many posts. Could you just briefly explain your position regarding continental drift and how it explains the radiometric and paleomagnetic data?
--Percy
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 01-29-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by LRP, posted 01-29-2003 3:05 AM LRP has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by LRP, posted 01-31-2003 3:44 PM Percy has replied

  
LRP
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 76 (30876)
01-31-2003 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Percy
01-29-2003 8:59 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Percy, posted 01-29-2003 8:59 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Percy, posted 01-31-2003 4:32 PM LRP has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 70 of 76 (30883)
01-31-2003 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by LRP
01-31-2003 3:44 PM


LRP writes:
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 palaeomagnetism and radiometric dating help in finding the answer to my original question which is how do we know WHEN the continents drifted apart.
I can't explain your geologist colleague's inability to help you with this. He'll have to explain that himself. I'm merely repeating to you modern geological theory, something you can learn in any introductory geology book. Here's a rather long excerpt from a layman's geology book, Building Planet Earth by Peter Cattermole, published in 2000, pages 120-121:
Wandering poles and continental drift
One of the reasons why geologists initially were so sceptical about Wegener's ideas was that there was no obvious reason why the continents should shift around, nor was there any plausible mechanism to achieve movement. An answer to the problem was first suggested by the great British geologist, Sir Arthur Holmes, who proposed that because the solid mantle was at very high temperature and under substantial pressure, it could actually flow over long periods. Slow motions of this kind would be more than ample to drag along rafts of the less dense lithosphere; although slow, the 'currents' would be extremely powerful. The situation is actually more complex than this, but Holmes certainly was on the right track.
Modern work has established that the lithosphere of the Earth is divided into a number of semi-rigid plates, seven of which are large, and a further five of which are of reasonable size. The boundaries between them are marked by zones of active seismicity and volcanicity. To be precise the term, 'continental drift' really refers to drift of the plates, rather than the continents alone; however, the result is much the same. Drift occurs because the plates are moving relative to one another, and the continents are carried along as part of lithospheric adjustments driven by mantle motions. Once this basic principle became accepted, it was relatively quickly that supporting evidence came along to dot the is and cross the ts, so to speak.
The most simple line of evidence comes from the almost perfect fit which can be achieved for some continents which once were joined; consider, for example, the structure of the Saharan Shield, which is around 2000 million years old. The structural grain of the rocks runs north-south towards the interior but then swings west-east towards the Atlantic margin. There is a well-defined boundary between these ancient rocks and younger ones which run into the ocean off the coast of Ghana. If drift is a fact, and Africa and South America once connected, there should be similar rocks with similar trends on the complementary side of the latter continent. Indeed, this is so; the boundary and a similar structural grain are found in the Brazilian Shield.
Further support for the theory comes from fossil remains. Fossils retrieved from ancient strata in Africa and Greenland, for instance, show that during the Silurian, Greenland was in tropical latitudes, while Africa was in the grip of glaciation! Then again, comparison of index fossils from the Phanerozoic rocks of both Gondwanaland and Laurasia shows that while the two were at one stage widely separated by the Tethys Ocean, at other times they were very close together, if not actually joined. The latter certainly was true between 350 and 220 million years ago.
The most convincing evidence, however, comes from palaeomagnetism, and it was this that finally clinched matters once and for all (although not immediately winning over all geologists). As I have previously mentioned, we can define the positions of the continents with respect to latitude by locating their past positions as shown by their palaeomagnetic imprint. During the late 1950s some curious facts had begun to emerge: as more and more palaeomagnetic measurements were made from different continents, it was found that, for any individual continent, if the magnetic pole positions were traced for different periods in time, data would not cluster around a single point but would trace out a path across which the pole appears to have passed. This could only be interpreted in one of two ways: either the magnetic pole had moved, or the continents had; initially it seems easier to accept that the magnetic pole position had changed. These paths were called polar wondering curves.
Once similar paths had been measured from different continents, it immediately became clear that this interpretation could not be the correct one. For instance, when polar paths for North America and Europe were plotted and compared on a map, while the pole position converges at the present time, 500million years ago, in the Early Palaeozoic, the poles were far apart. The same was found to be true for other continents too. There could be only one interpretation: the continents had moved. When the ancient pole positions for the different continents were 'put together', they were found to match those positions suggested by Wegener.
Now, you were aware that geologists think they know where each continent was over time, but because you didn't know how they knew you thought - what? That they were making it up?
Anyway, you now have the information you need to assess for yourself whether the evidence is convincing. Let me know if you have any questions about more detailed parts of the process. Something you said hints at the possibility that you believe the motion of the continents is derived from radiometric and paleomagnetic data from a single ancient volcanic eruption on each continent, but that's not the case at all. Geologists had to gather this data from basaltic material from many geologic ages. Something else you said hints that you believe basaltic rocks, once cooled, can change their magnetism to reflect the prevailing magnetic field, but this also isn't true. The magnetic orientation prevailing when the rock cools is frozen there for as long as the rock remains cool.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by LRP, posted 01-31-2003 3:44 PM LRP has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by LRP, posted 02-01-2003 4:54 PM Percy has replied
 Message 72 by LRP, posted 02-01-2003 4:58 PM Percy has not replied

  
LRP
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 76 (30987)
02-01-2003 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Percy
01-31-2003 4:32 PM


I am grateful for the time you have put into this sticking point
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.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Percy, posted 01-31-2003 4:32 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by TrueCreation, posted 02-01-2003 5:00 PM LRP has not replied
 Message 75 by Percy, posted 02-01-2003 7:00 PM LRP has not replied

  
LRP
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 76 (30988)
02-01-2003 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Percy
01-31-2003 4:32 PM


I am grateful for the time you have put into this sticking point
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.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Percy, posted 01-31-2003 4:32 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Brad McFall, posted 02-01-2003 5:50 PM LRP has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 76 (30990)
02-01-2003 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by LRP
02-01-2003 4:54 PM


"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.
-------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by LRP, posted 02-01-2003 4:54 PM LRP has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 74 of 76 (30992)
02-01-2003 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by LRP
02-01-2003 4:58 PM


Hey LRP; THANKS,
Ijust got your book!!!!
I have gone thru the MODERN CREATION TRILOGY once and it will be interesting for me to now read the four volumes TOGETHER.
Ill let you know what I think. As for biogeographic evolution realtive to drift on land etc Morris still have this in faith. Some day the science will catch up with the SPIRIT. God Bless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by LRP, posted 02-01-2003 4:58 PM LRP has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 75 of 76 (30997)
02-01-2003 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by LRP
02-01-2003 4:54 PM


LRP writes:
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.
This is a simpler question than the one we were actually discussing. You simply want to know when the split happened, not where each continent was over time. All you have to do in this case is radiometrically date the basaltic material of the sea floor adjacent to the east coast of South America, and of the sea floor on the west coast of Africa. Paleomagnetism isn't necessary for this measurement.
A cross-check that you could make would be to check sedimentation depth at the same places to see if it roughly corresponds to the passage of 100 million years. To the extent possible, since not all material is dateable radiometrically, you could also date the material at different sedimentation depths to see if it reflects gradually increasing age with depth that matches the age estimates based upon sedimentation depth.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by LRP, posted 02-01-2003 4:54 PM LRP has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Brad McFall, posted 02-03-2003 11:57 AM Percy has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 76 of 76 (31137)
02-03-2003 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Percy
02-01-2003 7:00 PM


P, I have not got all the way thru the book but there seems to be a "good" reason for LRP's needing to know this. You may be thermodynaically arguing against his veiw, which indeed was new to me as I began to read. And I am not yet writing any thing critically as of yet. Which would have to invovle Kant 175~5 etc...
The PICTURE he presents of continental drift IS at variance with my own viewing of comptuer modeling but beacuse LRP is arguing for a BINARY origin as the the effect the THEORY has on biogeography *this* would be testable insofar &any& info from history is reliable.
It seems he has managed to write witout heeding Einstein's NEED to have physics (transition to general relativity) within a total conception of gravity as physicists such as Feynman have been happy with. I am not yet making this kind of criticism of his work as I have not read all the book and LRP quotes the Stein any way as to choice.
The issue with disargeing with LRP's work is LESS material as I see it and indeed kinematical in the good sense. As this binary hypotheiss of the solar system thickness indeed means that certain dynamics will be external to biogeographi migrations. So it seems to me that his ILLUSTRATION of continental drift is NOT at variance with the perhaps newly to be finally done creationst biogeography that on another thread others had slammed as not yet in existence but indeed my to a certain explanation already understood of the THEORY be affirmed if not also confirmed.
My posts in the cosmology section were meant to address some of these larger things but I had not in 87 expanded my concept of "fundamental particle" above the ecosystem level. LRP's book enables me to foil my utility and facitlity once again in this kind of dispute that continues to plauge the non-determinst upset with the almost total probalism of current/modern science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Percy, posted 02-01-2003 7:00 PM Percy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024