Now I know that Alfred Wegener`s theory is wrong!

Actually, Aspevik, you do. Not just gold mines, but all ore deposits. Plate tectonic theory as we understand and accept it today, does a good job of explaining the locations of ore deposits, as well as non-metallic resources.You have to take all aspects of geology into account as a test of your model. If the facts and observations don't fit your model, your model is wrong.

I am not sure about that, because the fossils I have on my page are fitting perfekt into the model. There is no other wat to explain the mouintans in Aurasia (South). The continents doesn`t fit togheter either if we keep this area Wegener cutted of here on the map ( Yhe
square on fig. 4): And I have just moved Gondwanaland away from Aurasia to explain the mountans there. I followed all the vulcanic islands in Polynesia, Hawaii and the Aleutean. They lay like beads on a string in a huge semicircle over the Pacific Ocean an can indicate the drift of Gondwanaland.There have to be something wrong with the dating method someplace, I think.But, if I take Nord and South-America and put togheter like this: and we take the paelomagnetic measurements on both side and compare the rocks from the end of the Ediacara periode, and the minerals and so on...If they dont`t match at all , I understand that i have done a mistake. Not before this is tested out!

No, you don't get to do this.As a geologist you must explain what is happening here through all the time frames, that would be through the precambrian, paleozoic, mesazoic,and cenezoic and explain the vertical and horizontal distribution of the rocks and correlate them and show how the ore deposits occured.This is basic EXPLORATION geology not only for mineral deposits but for oil and gas as well.When I posted those four links, I KNEW you would pick the Cenozoic.
Why?
Because I saw it most supported your theory. Sorry, you have to look at everything, and stop only looking at what you like. Everything MUST be considered.Give me your "theory" which explains all FOUR maps, accounts for the vertical and horizontal distribution of rocks and explains it in time sequence. Edited by petrophysics1, : edit for better understanding for a non english speaker

Have you had occasion to study Rodinia and Pannotia? I think you will find the configuration of the continents interesting.

quote:

---

Give me your "theory" which explains all FOUR maps, accounts for the vertical and horizontal distribution of rocks and explains it in time sequence.

---

I would take a closer look to this when I come back tomorrow. And I would take a closer look to roxrkool proposal here.I just want to find out whats really happend here, even If I find out for sure that I have taken wrong.First I would take your 4 maps and put all the areas of gold field into one map to see how it looks. If the most goldfields are clustered at one side of the Earth then, this have to mean something.Whatever, these gold fields will not say so mutch if most of them now turns out to be gathering at one side of the Earth anyway. I would never be able to prove that the geologist have done something wrong when they constructed these methods to determine the different ages of rocks, etc.But, I would be back tonight or tomorow. Have a good weekend. :-)

Here is the locations of these fossils, and I explain this on my page: http://www.aspevik.net/extra.htm

Just out of curiosity, what are the processes or events that resulted in this alignment? I know you suggest some impact caused this alignment, but how?

I belive a meteor hit the surface in the past, near the north pole and make a "scar" we see still today in the flatten seafloor even the seafloor have changed as a result of seafloor spreading. I belive this hit broke up the continents and the new mass pushed that area Wegenere callaed "Gondwannaland" south on the Earth when the mass melted.I belive this land rotated around an axis in that area we find "Panama" today. The sentrifugal force, the same force who pressed all all planets out near Equator, helped this broken plates to drift too.When Antarctica get stabilized where this force are weakest, at the south pole, South America stabilized too. But Africa, India and Australia went further in the same rotate direction and
collided with "Europe and Asia" and made the mouintan ranges there. I belive the vulculacnic islands, Polynesian Island, Hawaii, and the Alutean islandsis a indicator to this drift. They make a pretty perfect half circle ove the Pacific and come to the surface in a later period.I have more. :-)If we take a look at the moon, I know that the scientist don`t know the age of the Moon. They know the Moon is formed like a egg with the tip down to the Earth. And they know the Moon moving away from Earth by 3.5 centimeter in the year.If we think about that, this maybe tells us that the Moon come from the Earth in the past.But how?If a meteor hit the surface and penetraded into the Earth, it would have been some mass from the mantle pressed out the same way the moteor went in. It is the same as you thrown a stone into water, it would be a "splash". The drops from a stone in wather would "splash" away from the center.If the Moon was created by a hit like that, there is only 2 places on the Earth this possible cold have happend. That is on the South Pole or the North Pole because the angle of this "drops" tells us that.This "drops" with melted stone, would have been gathered in the years and we have a Moon.I don`t claims that it was this hit who created the Moon, but there is a possibly chance for that. I belive the Moon was created by a hit like this on one of the poles, independent when this happened.If a hit like that came into another side of the Earth, there would have been a different result. This is just a thought. :-)Edited by Aspevik, : No reason given.

One thing I can't see in your model. You place everything in the Endicarian times then talk of Gonwanland which didn't exst for a couple hundred million years. Pangaea formed after the eEndicarian epoch in the pre-Cambrian. Pangaea came together in the late Orodivian or early Devonian and broke up stating in the Permian and continued through the Mezozoic ages.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Once again, you cannot do this.Ediacaran age fossils can only be found where Ediacaran rocks of the proper type/depositional environment are EXPOSED on the surface. This has NOTHING to do with all the places in the world where these rocks exist but are buried under the surface and you cannot look at to see if they have fossils.Where we have rocks exposed on the surface has NOTHING to do with the LIVING distribution of Ediacaran fossils.No one is going to dig up Ediacaran age rocks that are 50, 100, 5000 or 30,000 ft below the surface to see if these fossils are there.Your map means nothing.That you did this shows me you do not have an understanding of basic geology.Otherwise show me why you made a map for the living distribution of Ediacaran fossils only based upon where surface exposures of these fossils occured.What about all the subsurface areas where these rocks exist, are there Ediacaran fossils there?Well you don't know. So your map of their living distribution means nothing, and doesn't support your "theory".Once again a very basic error.Want people to listen to you, show them you know what you are talking about.

This is what I was going to get at later. First I wanted to know how the impact affected the location of Ediacara fossils. The only thing I can think of is that Asp is thinking he's marking the locations of the deaths, burials, lithification, and subsequent exposure of these trace fossils -- all occurring in the exact same geographic location. Obviously, geologists know this is highly unlikely.

You still haven't answered the question as to what those fossil locations have to do with the impact. Do you have any geochem or stratigraphic evidence for this impact?

That is right! : I dont,t have any name on the area Wegener called Gondwanaland, but I belive this areas was there at this time anyway.We know that if we dig deeper and deeper, the rocks get older and older. The goelogist have made a system to dat these layers, based on the continentaldrifttheory as it is today. But what if the whole teory was wrong from the beginning and they have build their knowlegde on that?What if one or more metorites have penetraded the Earth when the Earth have exist, and these hits make new layers of rocks on top if the existing roks? The geologs will stand on the top of these layers and tell the world that these areas came up mutch later even the older rocks are under this layer.As I have told before there is only two ways the continents can have been created. And that is as a result of sentrifugal force or the sentripital force. The sentrifugal force press the lighter mass out to Equator an makes the continents arond the Earth. But if we use the sentripital force, the heavier mass sink to the bottom in the Earth an the lighter mass floaten up to the top so far it possible. Since the Equator is 15 kilometers longer out than the poles, the mass will be clustered there. no matter which of these two explanatory models to use, the result will be the same.I belive that instead of Pangaea the continents formed a
belt around the equator, spun out as the earth cooled,
as a centrifuge would (or the sentripital force too).We have also som seafloor on the top of Finse here in Norway. Finse is some of the highest point here in this country where we have a lot of huge mountains from the precambrium, and there is nothing explonation how this seafloor came up there too. Did this land sunk and came up or what? This seafloor is mutch younger than the precambrian rocks, and the geologist conclude with that these tops was seafloor once at the time.But... there is only one explonation on this and that is that the seafloor was trown up on the top of these mouintans. This area is also under the line I wrote into my fossilmap.So even we find a toplayer of one later period, it don`t have to mean this landmass wasen`t there at the time this new layer was created.
The Pangea theory is just a theory, not facts, so we ca`t use it as proves anyway. If we do that, the whole ting would be wrong from the start and I think that is what have been happend here. Geology is not a religion, but some I talk to belives that!

Yes and according to several sources those mountains & the Appalachian Mountains here in eastern North America are part of the same chain formed in the initial collision of the European plate with the N. American plate.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Says who? Relative dating methods based on fossils and stratigraphy were developed LONG before continental drift theory was fully developed. Plate tectonics, however, is one of many lines of evidence that independently validated the method and its findings. Impacts leave evidence behind and geologists are quite adept at recognizing those features in the field. What is your evidence for any of your alleged impacts? What about plate tectonics theory? Have you read it? It will explain how you get marine rocks on tops of mountains. Seriously, Asp. Let's not go down that road, too. It's apparent your theory has a multitude of problems. Don't fault the geologists for that.Edited by roxrkool, : Clarification