Catastrophic Plate Tectonics - Fact or Fiction?

Evidence? We don't need evidence, we've got a model!

A hundred? Who told you this? Actually, I'm not sure why this would be a problem anyway. There are 6 or 7 major plates and just looking at the geometry of them, it should become obvious that numerous more microplates would be expected. The maximum rates are on the order of 10 cm/y. Some continental plates are very much less, I'm guessing less than 1 cm/y. Why is this a problem? Are all cars on the streets going the same speed? In some cases yes. In some cases the vectors appear to have changed. Again, why is this a problem? Are you some kind of ultra-uniformitarion? It's been done hundreds of times and basically, they look very similar. Details might be different, but we can't know everything about a continental mass. None. There is simply no evidence for it, and no need for it. Absolutely. Do you really think that the theorists have not thought about this? No. Perhaps many small catastrophes, but no 'immense' ones. If you call these questions, I assure you that they have been answered many times over. However, I fail to see any significance to most of them. Not 'greater catastrophes' just more of the garden variety of them. And they all occur within the normal process parameters of geological forces. I hate to break the news to you, but that is how it is with any scientific study. The more you know, the more detail you get. The more detail, the more complexity. These are not 'greater catastrophes', but greater complexities. If this means to you that it is less 'parsimonious', then I suggest you never study particle physics; because the universe is becoming less and less parsimonious every day. Have you looked under the hood of your car? I'll bet it's less parsimonious than your previous vehicle. Does that mean that automobiles don't work?

Certainly, you are free to believe whatever you want. The problem you will face is when your assertions conflict with known scientific facts.For your information, I have been studying geology for several decades and see no viable alternative to normal plate tectonics. It is a powerful tool. Having said that, if someone came up with a better theory with better explanatory powers, I would be more than willing to adopt it. That is one difference between you and me and between religion and science. No apologies necessary. It takes a long time to obtain the knowledge and experience that you see on this board.

Actually, there is no conflict. If you look at it in a completely unbiased way, you will notice that it is only the YEC interpretation of the Bible that is in conflict with plate tectonics and evolution.

Ah, then you agree that the explanatory powers of plate tectonics are pretty convincing. And you don't see this as a shortcoming? I thought you said that they did not come into contact... I don't have a problem with this at all. Including mantle viscosities? Heat flows? Frankly, I don't know since I have relied on others who have the patience to actually get beyond the cartoonish diagrams. Face it, Baumgardner is a crank. Clearly, however, you begin to crowd the field when you enter the region of strain rates hundreds of thousands of time higher than observed rates. There just isn't as much room for ductile strain and we should see much more shattering than we do. Just my opinion of course. Sorry, but your logic is poorly founded. You do understand, don't you, that some logic is fallacious. In fact, scientifically speaking, your logic is fallacious because it lacks any support other than the fact that you wish it to be so. And it is also evidence for last Thursdayism. See, Chris, this is a typical YEC problem. YOu have a reigning paradigm that has great explanatory power; and yet you think that another theory, based solely on wishful thinking and faulty logic, should be treated on the same level. This is scientific chaos. It will not be accepted. Do you realize the implications if we were forced to entertain every crackpot idea that came along? Should we still be debating a flat earth? If you were to have your way, I will insist that we discuss phlogiston on these same pages. And I expect government funding to support my research, as well. I am unaware of these theories and can only take your word that they are either controversial and taken seriously. My guess is that they explain some facet of the universe better than competing theories, even if they do not explain everything. Actually, there is. For instance, the combination of radiometric dating and paleomagnetism is pretty diagnostic for plate tectonics. HOwever, I note that you have moved the goal posts. You have modified my statement to say 'unequivocal' diagnostic evidence. Sorry, but the nature of a geologic datum is always equivocal. It is the combination of numerous independent lines of evidence that corroborate mainstream plate tectonics. Well, there you go. I'll bet there is some evidence that they explain better than competing theories. The point is that CPT really doesn't, despite your opinion. Well, then you'd better get to work. My advice is, however, that you are wasting your time, breath and money. The only reason for CPT to be considered is the desperate hope for an explanation of the biblical flood. Baumgardner admits this himself.

First of all I'm not asking about Baumgardner's models. I'm asking you why increasing subduction rates by hundreds of thousands times does not affect the quantity, style and composition of volcanism. And why are igneous rocks spread out all over the geologic time scale rather than clumped together in one year? Hold on! Do you really think that the only place volcanism would be affected is at convergent bounaries? This is silly. Why do the Icelandic volcanoes produce so much in the way of toxic gases, then? And you think that the mantle wedge is the source of volatiles? Sorry, Chris, this won't wash. (Sigh) Chris, I don't care if it's a one percent efficient conversion. You still increase the consumption rate of oceanic crust hundreds of thousands of times. Chris, you have increased the rate of oceanic crust consumption by hundreds of thousands of times. YOu have increased the rate of crustal production likewise. NOt only that, but you have put a significant part of the entire planet's volcanic rock production, since the beginning into a one year (more or less) time frame. ARe you seriously telling us that this would be no different than what we see today? The point being. I mean, other than the fact that I have it relatively easy. I guess I'm just shocked that anyone with a modicum of geologic understanding would even attempt to support a fantastic theory promoted by a religious fanatic. Which is exactly what we have all been doing here. The record of volcanism is just one argument against CPT. And you have not handled it very well.

As I have said, you are free to believe whatever you want. My point, however, is that, if you look closely, the only conflict between the bible and mainstream science is YOUR interpretation of the scripture. There is nowhere in the bible that a 6ky age is specified. There is nowhere in the bible that the method by which creation occurred is specified. These are simple-minded fundamentalist constructs and nothing more.

Then I guess, you just left it out of your logical train of thought. You do realize that as the OC disappears at fantastic rates that it must also form at fantastic rates. Does this not require an increase in the rate of volcanic eruption? Yes, MERELY gases and aerosols from a small (compared to CPT) eruption that altered the climate of Europe, thousands of miles away in 1789(?). Now remember that you want to increase the size of this eruption many thousands of times and then have it occurring all along at least several branches of mid ocean ridges. Does this really make any sense to you? Where do you see this in the geologic record (this would be evidence)? I'm not sure that I need a numerical modle to tell me that if OC is being destroyed at millions of square kilometers per year that it also has to be forming at the same rate. Unless you beleive that the earth is shrinking, too. Well, to you, no. I have failed. If you do not see the problem of absolutely zero evidence to favor CPT over plate tectonics, there isn't much that I can do. Because it is based on actual OBSERVED processes. CPT predicts oceanic crust of virtually one age and all of it 4ky ago, and most of the plantet's volcanism occurring in one event.I have no real time to answer the rest of your post right now. Suffice it to say that you are at a disadvantage in having no diagnostic evidence for CPT. Believing in something may be good, but stubbornness is not necessarily a good trait.

That's it? You presume so? So there would be differences in the volcanic record had CPT occurred. I'm glad that we resolved that. Well, first of all, under CPT, most volcanic rocks would have been formed in one year, more or less, particularly the OC. If that were so, they would all have the same ages. We do not see this. Add to this the fact that CPT predicts complete thermal sterilization of the earth and we begin to see a few cracks in the theory. Then the details start to hit. No compositional or textural differences in CPT related rocks, plenty of evidence for ductile strain in viscous bodies, magnetic evidence... Where do you want to stop, Chris? Face it, the whine about CPT being undeveloped is a small problem compared to everything else.And you still haven't answered my question of WHY you adhere to CPT if not for religious reasons? Basically, the ONLY reason for CPT is to rationalize a biblical flood. Do you beleive in the flood as per current fundamental YEC thought? I get it! Only models are real! Very good. Chris, do you have a clue as to how geology was done before numerical modeling? If you have another way to produce oceanic crust, than by volcanic magmatism we'd love to hear it.Sorry, but I have calculated that the rate of OC consumption and formation has been speeded up by hundreds of thousands of times. I have stated that this should produce some kind of noticeable effect on the geological record. For you to find that effect would be called 'evidence'. It would be a good thing for you to have. Otherwise, there are a thousand other theories that are just as good as CPT, including Last Thursdayism which has just as much evidence as CPT and requires ignorance of the same amount of mainstream data. Good, you had me worried, for a moment. There are thousands of data points in the geochronological record that show magmatism spread out over billions of years. If you don't accept that, then there isn't much I can do to help. According to you all OC should be 4ky or less in age and virtually all of it should be one age... down to the year. Umm, care to address the evidence issue, or are you just going to chide me for not bothering to waste my time on too many arguments with you?

Yes and you have made the assertion that CPT is better at explaining the geological record than plate tectonics. And you have provided no physical evidence that it has ever happened other than to say that the evidence is that same as for PT. That is not good enough. It's like the recolonizationsts whose main line of evidence is a lack of evidence prior to the Archean. So, tell us what the crustal heat flow is during CPT? Back up your claims that CPT is better.

Please explain. Why is a theory's power to explain a weakness?

Chris, now that you are back, I am really interested in why you espouse CPT. Is it because of your sense of equal justice for all theories? Or is it because you REALLY NEED an explanation for the global flood? Or maybe you feel sorry for Baumgardner. Or maybe you are convinced of the superiority of numerical modeling over direct geological observation. I'd like to know.Second, is it really that much better at explaining various parts of the geological/fossil/geochronological record? If so, please give us a specific example of how it is better. For instance, how does it explain the spread of radiometric ages for igneous rocks throught geological history better than mainstream geology? If that doesn't work for you, just remember the question (it won't go away), and try another one. I'm open to suggestions.

THen you have expended an awful lot of energy on something that is of only academic interest to you. Somehow, I find this hard to believe. So then, you do not accept radiometric dating? I think you are confused, Chris. Why don't we start with some kind of evidence for CPT and go from there. Give us one good reason, other than that it is an interesting idea, why CPT deserves more work. And why should a theory that explains 1% of the evidence should even be on the same planet as one that explains 99% of the evidence.

Why stop at one? Heck, if the universe is that easy to explain, why not go for the gold and just admit that there have been innumerable miracles and throw science out the window?

I do not see the connection. Even without fossil evidence, plate tectonics is the only theory that explains the data. Please explain why PT hinges on the fossil record. I have to question your experience in science. In the real world, every theory is tested every day. As yet, geologists have not found the basics of PT to fail. Again, Philip, if it didn't work, we wouldn't use it. Please provide and example of another theory that actually works (and not just in the YEC fantasy world). NOw you are asking too much. Why would we waste time on a theory that has NO predictive capabilities and forces us to ignore huge tracts of scientific evidence? You are simply trying to bulldoze your way through this now, with demands and assertions. It truly appears that you have run out of ammunition and are now wasting our time. THis is where it gets tedious.