|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Wegener and Evidence for Continental Drift | |||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Actually, it's both. His model generates enough heat to boil away a a significant part of the oceans. His physical properties are way out of line with reality because he needs them to be for his model to work.
quote: It is standard knowledge that Wegener had no viable mechanism. He may have thrown out some ideas without any support, but basically, he didn't have a clue. Maybe he was like modern YECs...
quote: Then one might be wise to live and learn a bit before making wild assertions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Postulating a mechanism means nothing."
--Right, though producing a mechanism which explains various sets of data, does. "You have to have evidence for that mechanism in order for it to be considered. Wegener's ideas of continental drift were rejected because he had no evidence of any mechanism that could drive continents through rigid oceanic crust. He had evidence that the continenets had moved, but no evidence for how they had moved."--True. "Baumgardener is in somewhat the same boat. He has postulated a mechanism for how the continents could have moved in a very short period of time, but he has no evidence for that mechanism."--I wouldn't think so. After reading more of his material I have come to give him more credit than I did previously. His mechanism of gravitational potential energy works well and gets the job done, explaining much of that seen in geochem/geophys quite well, though there are still many details which need worked out. I think for a very young theory being seriously worked on by a very small handfull, it is exceptional. "And his position is far, far weaker than Wegener's, because he also has no evidence for the phenomena for which he's proposed a mechansism. In other words, not only is his mechanism mere unsupported postulation, but so is his phenomena of rapidly moving continents."--You mean gravitational potential energy, deformational instability, and resultant runaway subduction. I think it has a better foundation than you would think. The basic idea of runaway subduction is a somewhat well-known phenomena in geophysical circles. From what I have read on the weakening mechanisms for the subducting lithospheric slab, including loading rate, wet/dry, damage, temp parameters, and anisotropy. One of my current studies will be looking at some of the details on the runaway regime in considering temperature and isothermal differentiations. The current status of CPT is in better condition than conventional theory at the time wegener was doing expounding work on continental drift. We are slowely but surely working our way forward. "But this still drifts from the thread's topic. You claimed there is evidence for the flood."--Yes it does drift somewhat from the topic, though the topic wasn't that I had made the claim that 'there is evidence for the flood', but that as PaulK stated: "Flood geology is not just lacking a mexhanismsic it is also lacking the evidence which continental drift had at the point Wegener proposed it." I claimed that he was wrong, and am supporting that claim. I like others on this board [do not - edit]see much of a matter in this accusation. So it might be fun to discuss other implications such as those in the first parts of this post. "As I mentioned above as Admin, Wegener could point to similar flora/fauna and geology on continents on opposite sides of the Atlantic. What evidence can you point to for the flood?"--Well that would be evidence for CPT because that's what it would predict, that the continents once were conjoined, and thus flora and fauna would be similar. But of course this renders that evidence equivocal as will occur with the presentation of much of that evidence for general plate tectonics and continental drift. Our theories are so similar because we both seak to explain the data, the data certainly suggest that the continents have been connected in the past and that they have moved around in the past at some finite rate. ------------------ [This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 04-07-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
quote:"I have no idea why you claim that I am concerned about the above matter. SO far as I am concerned it is a diversion brought up by you. I do not even know why you brought it up." --No, I think you made it very explicit..: "Flood geology is not just lacking a mexhanism it is also lacking the evidence which continental drift had at the point Wegener proposed it." "The actual issue would seem to be important for reasons stated in my head post. In a comparison with Wegener you cannot claim a lack of time or manpower - YEC has had more time and more manpower than Wegener ever did."--lol, no, Wegener et. al. had at least 30+ years to develop the theory of continental drift, and all along never had a theoretical mechanism even slightly plausible to get it done. According to what a few of my fellow evo's have been flying my way since I can remember, If that were me and my few fellow geophysical YEC's, I would have been punched in the face for not doing science. But then again, there is that other group of evo's who understand science and the progressive nature of scientific developments. The general acceptance of continental drift did not come until ~60 post-conception. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Actually, it's both."
--Certainly you know the relation.. "His model generates enough heat to boil away a a significant part of the oceans."--Yup, it will certainly vaporize a portion of the oceans, oh well. "His physical properties are way out of line with reality because he needs them to be for his model to work."--Not really, from what I can see, his physical properties seem to be resultant from physical conditions going through an evolutionary progression. What do you see? Or should I be asking 'what is it you have heard'? "It is standard knowledge that Wegener had no viable mechanism."--Yup, but what isn't standard knowledge is that "Wegener had no mechanism". "He may have thrown out some ideas without any support, but basically, he didn't have a clue. Maybe he was like modern YECs..."--Yeah, so I guess that as long as you (or, the data) are not supporting some crazy notion of 'Young Earth Creationism', its perfectly alright to throw around unfounded hypotheses every which way. "Then one might be wise to live and learn a bit before making wild assertions."--Yeah, whoever came up with some 'continental drift' theory, must have been a real moron.. but wait a sec, its 90 years later and its foundational to all of geology and is, in itself, a professional research topic. Wierd isn't it. ------------------ [This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 04-07-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Well it seems quite obvious that I never raised the point explicitly, so I really have no idea why you think otherwise. Quite frankly it seems that you are using it so that it is easier to ignore evidnece against your views.
As I pointed out in my first post Wegener come across the first evidence in 1911 and died in 1930. That is 19 years, not 30 - and leaves out his other work (Including his wartime service), But your argument here is that since your ideas resemble plate tectonics we should take evidence for that as evidence for your ideas ? Wegener DID have evidence that pointed to continental drift over the prevailing view that continets were static. Since you seem to deny that you have such evidence - all yours is apparently better explained by conventional geology - it seems that my point was quite correct.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Well it seems quite obvious that I never raised the point explicitly, so I really have no idea why you think otherwise."
--You can repeat it as many times as you wish, but the quote (verbatim) remains, in which you made your intentive explicitly obvious. "Quite frankly it seems that you are using it so that it is easier to ignore evidnece against your views."--I've made assertions in my post toward percy, why don't you comment on those then if you want to go to another (more relevant) topic then? Either way, my claim that you were wrong about Wegener and the current status of 'flood geology' was correct. I don't use such petty 'escape routes'. "As I pointed out in my first post Wegener come across the first evidence in 1911 and died in 1930. That is 19 years, not 30 - and leaves out his other work (Including his wartime service),"--Oops, yes your correct about this, my source quoted a 1946 reference for Wegener, it seems that date is for a 4th print. My points remain though. "But your argument here is that since your ideas resemble plate tectonics we should take evidence for that as evidence for your ideas ?"--No, not because it 'resembles plate tectonics', because it is a theory which explains the same data. "Wegener DID have evidence that pointed to continental drift over the prevailing view that continets were static."--Never argued, or suggested an argument against this. "Since you seem to deny that you have such evidence - all yours is apparently better explained by conventional geology - it seems that my point was quite correct.--Nope, CPT explains all of that which Wegener had in his day. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Whatever you say the fact remains that the quote does NOT say anything about evidence AGAINST your CPT let alone limit the evidence against that can be considered to that available at the time of Wegener.
Here it is again just to prove my point"Flood geology is not just lacking a mexhanism it is also lacking the evidence which continental drift had at the point Wegener proposed it." I remind you that the Forum rules forbid misrepresentation. What I meant is that the evidence FOR flood geology is weaker than that Wegener had. That is how others interpreted it. I suggest that rather than arguing against your own rather odd interpretation, that you deal with that. Although it would mean producing evidence FOR Flood goelogy which you seem unable or unwilling to do. Instead you seem to be using - to use your phrase - a "petty escape route". And I note that the assertions you made in reply to Percy do NOT deal with evidence for the Flood - which Percy specifically requested or evidencw for Flood geology. 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. If Price isn't good enough then what about Grant who actually did some research and proposed ecological sorting back in the 40s ? If not Grant what about Morris ? What about the ICR/CHC graduate program ? (Here is what one of them more recently said about the ICR: http:/http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/robertso.htm) And you claim that your CPT explains the same data - but does it ? You haven't really dealt with the fossil record - that was evidence used by Wegener, but it did not indicate that the continents has seperated recently as your view claims. If all or most of the fossils are of life existing before he continents seperated why does it not indicate a more recent seperation ? I also note more distortion of my arguments when you deal with the point that Wegener did have evidence for his view over the conventional view while you do not. All you answer is my point about Wegener - claiming that you never denied it but completely ignoring the context. Given that we have two examples of misrepresentation in this one post and that you do not seem to want to produce any positive evidence for Flood geology it seems best to end it here. I can't see your approach leading anywhere but to more hostility. Please do not post again to this thread unless you wish to switch to a more reasonable mode of discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
TC writes: "Postulating a mechanism means nothing."--Right, though producing a mechanism which explains various sets of data, does. Which "various sets of data" does it explain? That was the point of much of my message: Baumgardner has no data. He has no data because he isn't explaining data, he's explaining Genesis. Baumgardner needs data indicating that the continents moved rapidly, minimally miles/year. Where is that data? There is solid evidence that the continents moved very slowly, centimeters per year:
All we're asking is that you produce your flood scenario evidence for rapidly moving continents. By the way, you've misunderstood PaulK's original point about Wegener. The reason scientists sought a mechanism for moving continents was because of the evidence uncovered by Wegener that the continents had moved. Presumably Baumgardner sought a mechanism for rapidly moving continents because of the evidence that the continents had moved rapidly. We're claiming there's no evidence for rapidly moving continents, and you're claiming there is. All you need to do to settle this discussion in your favor is produce the evidence. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Then you agree that the model is completely unrealistic. You are being unusually reasonable today.
quote: What progression is that? Why would the physical properties of the mantle change and then reverse? What is the supporting evidence for it? This is not a progression, it is wishful thinking.
quote: Well, let's just say that as long as you don't ignore other lines of evidence that completely negate your hypothesis.
quote: Well, there was no evidence against it either. THat is the point. The only real argument against Wegener was that he couldn't explain continental drift. In the case of YECism there is abundant evidence that it is scientifically bankrupt.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: LOL! It also explains why the earth was sterilized and there is presently no life on earth! And why the atmosphere was completely poisoned by volcanic gases! And why there are not sediments on the seafloor older than the the flood! And why there are no ice cores with layers younger than 4000 years! Yep, good model you've got there, TC! It predicts everything in the natural world accurately and precisely! Now, all you need is evidence. We are waiting!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Randy Member (Idle past 6247 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
TC,
You mean gravitational potential energy, deformational instability, and resultant runaway subduction. As I pointed out before we have already discussed the many fatal flaws in Baumgardner’s bogus runaway subduction model in some detail. http://EvC Forum: Creationist Baumgardner: one of the top mainstream mantle/plate tectonics simulators! -->EvC Forum: Creationist Baumgardner: one of the top mainstream mantle/plate tectonics simulators! You don’t have the starting mechanism quite right. First he invokes an ad hoc mechanism, maybe suddenly speeded up radioactive decay, to heat the mantle super hot to reduce the viscosity by 10^8-10^9 in order to get the process started. He also requires an absurd value for thermal conductivity. http://EvC Forum: Creationist Baumgardner: one of the top mainstream mantle/plate tectonics simulators! -->EvC Forum: Creationist Baumgardner: one of the top mainstream mantle/plate tectonics simulators! The gravitational potential energy then drives the process and releases a lot of heat.
--Yup, it will certainly vaporize a portion of the oceans, oh well. It doesn’t just release enough heat to boil a portion of the oceans, it starts by releasing 3 time more heat than would be needed to boil all the water in the oceans and then it replaces the entire ocean lithosphere with molten mantle material that is generating a lot of heat and must release a lot of heat to solidify. While the heat would boil the oceans away several times over, lets just talk about what Baumgardner admits to, the boiling of a significant fraction of the oceans. I did an analysis of this a few years ago that I have posted several places. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, there are about 5 x10^21 g of air. The heat capacity at constant pressure of dry air is about 1 J/g(its less at constant volume but this is a convenient number). For the steam from the boiling oceans to condense to form rain it must release its latent heat of vaporization about 2225 J/g. This means that the condensation of 1 gram of steam to water releases enough heat to raise the temperature of 22.5 grams of air by 100 C and it takes only 5.1x10^23 J to heat the whole atmosphere by 100 C. Again according to Britannica, there are about 1.4 billion cubic kilometers (1.4 x 10^24 g) of water in the ocean. This means that boiling the entire ocean would release about 6,000 times the amount of heat required to raise the average temperature of the entire atmosphere to 100 degrees Celsius while only using about 1/3 of the 10^28 J released by the subduction process and none of the heat from the molten ocean floor. Because you have several thousand times more heat than is required to sterilize the atmosphere it will not matter what the starting temperature of the atmosphere is. Boiling any truly significant fraction of the ocean will necessarily lead to air pressures well above 1 atmosphere, since atmospheric pressure is hydrostatic and the weight of the steam will be much more than the weight of the air. Temperatures will reach well above 100 C, because the boiling point of water will increase as the air pressure increases. From my steam tables I calculate that boiling just 5% of the ocean will lead to an atmosphere of saturated steam at about 200 C. Steamed ark soup anyone? Randy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
TC, you may return to your seat now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
quote:--I don't know about you, but I don't mind it if anyone is trying to support any documentation of the distant past. Indeed, the bible is used quite a bit in modern archaeology. But the reason I find Baumgardner's hypothesis very promising is because it does explain much of the geophysical data. Of course this is largely because mainstream plate tectonics is practically identical. quote:--What are your thoughts on, say the South Pacific and African Superswells? These are titanic deflections in elevation(the South Pacific Superswell for instance, exhibits anamalous elevations of ~250 meters). I am curious as to the origin of these superswells--that is to say how it is explained with conventional geo-time-scales. From analysis of the seismic tomography of the area, underneath these superswells is a ring of cold downwelling mantle rock. In the center of this ring on both sides of the earth is warm rock squeezed up like toothpaste. The density difference of these regions is on the order of 3-4% which is also inferred as temperature differentiations. I am confused as to how there could there be such a difference in temperature if there was supposed to be upwards of 100 million years of time for the cold upper boundary layer to reach the mantle bottom. quote:--You know we postulate accelerated decay so I wouldn't consider this "solid evidence that the continents moved very slowely". quote:--I would expect the exponential decrease in sedimentation as we move closer to mid-ocean ridges, though that they correspond with existing sedimentation rates may be relevant. Please elaborate on the status of this argument. quote:--Same thing as your #1. --Do you have anything which could potentially be less equivocal than your 1, 3, & 4? quote:--Well that apparently wasn't PaulK's intention for beginning this thread. quote:--I don't know what his motive is on that one, but I know what mine is.. I have yet to find conclusive evidence that plate motion has always been so uniform--hence my interest in searching for whether there can be a tenable model of young earth geodynamics or not. quote:--Where did I say there was such evidence (ie, such evidence which would unequivocally provide me with that conclusion)? ------------------- Geoscience - http://www.oysi.promisoft.net
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
quote:--An unwarranted inference from what I actually said, but yes it is not yet a scientifically plausible alternative to uniformitarian plate tectonics. quote:--The progression is the evolution of the runaway regime. From the initial perturbation to its quick progression toward instabilities resulting in the runaway regime. quote:--What mantle properties changed and reversed?? quote:--Such as? quote:--Yes, and it wasn't solved for quite some time also. Wegener had his inconsistencies, we have ours. Have you not noticed that CPT isn't exactly an older paradigm? ------------------ Geoscience - http://www.oysi.promisoft.net
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
TC writes:
--Yes, and it wasn't solved for quite some time also. Wegener had his inconsistencies, we have ours. Have you not noticed that CPT isn't exactly an older paradigm? But this thread is about evidence. It originated with the Grand Canyon thread where at one point while defending your young canyon views you alluded to Wegener, and PaulK explained that while Wegener had no process, he at least had evidence. You don't even have evidence. You replied that you'd be happy to prove him wrong, and hence this thread. But we're still waiting for your evidence. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024