Catastrophic Plate Tectonics - Fact or Fiction?

"On the other hand, True-Science authority must conclude that *something immeasurable* exists deeply within quarks and the cosmos that SUSTAINS it all!"I am sorry, but I find this statement incomprehensible. I could be wrong but it appears to me that this statement and the rest of your post is just a fancy way of saying "God did it." As for my post about "creation with apparent age" I must confess that it was a bit "tongue in cheek" I didn't exect you to take it seriously. But the serious point is if you are going to claim miracles (which I maintain CPT is) then there is really no point in trying to work out rational explanations. Your God is a "God of the Gaps" You want to accept science as long as it doesn't contradict a literal Genesis. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Science cannot incorporate supernatural explanations. If you want to think as a scientist you have to let go of the notion of the Bible as a science and history book. (That is not the same as rejecting the Bible as a religious holy book - I firmly believe that the YEC position is a heresy - I don't believe the Bible was ever intended to be read that way.)

quote:

---

Ah, then you agree that the explanatory powers of plate tectonics are pretty convincing.

---

Yup. However this method of explanitory power is a theoretical weakness, not a strength.

quote:

---

And you don't see this as a shortcoming?

---

Of course I do. That Baumgardner couldn't model mantle behavior in infinite resolution is also a shortcoming. oh darn..

quote:

---

I thought you said that they did not come into contact...

---

Not in his 2D models. As I explained it doesn't matter.

quote:

---

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.

---

Cartoonish diagrams? lol. Evidently you haven't seen much computer geophysical research. Yes including mantle viscosities and heat flows. I agree, frankly you don't know.

quote:

---

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.

---

Strain rate is very different from actual strain. Your opinion is conjecture.

quote:

---

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.

---

You've completely missed the mark. The logic is sound. underdevelopment=underexplanation is inherent. Where underdevelopment is high, underexplanation will also be.

quote:

---

And it is also evidence for last Thursdayism.

---

Well your the one who said that it was evidence for PT.. I just assumed that you actually thought that mattered.

quote:

---

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.

---

Not a surprise coming from someone who can't 'get passed the cartoonish diagrams'.

quote:

---

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.

---

CPT has not been conclusively refuted. I agree it is ulatimately outrageous relative to PT theory, but hell im just enjoying seeing how far CPT will go. It hardly equivalent to the flat earth or phlogiston and deserves far more credit than you will give it.

quote:

---

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.

---

they explain about the same data. But the capture theory seems a little more 'out there', so the Solar Nebula is more popular.

quote:

---

Actually, there is. For instance, the combination of radiometric dating and paleomagnetism is pretty diagnostic for plate tectonics.

---

it is evidence in its favor. CPT can also explain this, however the answer begs more questions which have not been answered.

quote:

---

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.

---

I never said CPT did explain the data better than PT.

quote:

---

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.

---

Scientific direction is not always a deductive result of data analysis. The origin of many scientific achievements I would consider crazy if not crazier than Baumgardner's impetus to research CPT. We are all human and you have no idea how I gauge my intellectual achievements--whatever the outcome of CPT, I will not consider it 'waisting my time'.Don't you ever wonder why our discussions always go to shit like this? If your not going to take time to look into what we are discussing, you really don't have much to say.-Chris Grose

---

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.

I am beginning to think this thread is a waste of time. The CPT proponents on here do not appear to be able (or willing) to answer these two basic questions:Where does the energy come from to move continents fast enough to fit within the biblical flood time frame? (It is not acceptable to start "stretching out" CPT beyond the biblical flood time frame because then we have the "enough water to cover Everest problem". Also, how is CPT different from plain old PT if we allow this explanation?)What is the disposition of the excess kinetic and heat energy, assuming question 1 is satisfied and CPT does in fact occur?

quote:

---

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.

---

Because I don't yet see much reason to think that quantity, style and composition of volcanism would be expected to be much different than that observed. In some cases I don't yet see how we could determine that in a generalized sense.

quote:

---

Hold on! Do you really think that the only place volcanism would be affected is at convergent bounaries? This is silly.

---

What is 'silly' is the way you interpret everything I say. I didn't say this.

quote:

---

Why do the Icelandic volcanoes produce so much in the way of toxic gases, then?

---

I'm not aware of the details of the atmophile geochemical component of extrusive volcanics so I can't address this problem with CPT in much detail. However I think the gas component of icelandic volcanics is merely fractionated from mantle rock.

quote:

---

And you think that the mantle wedge is the source of volatiles? Sorry, Chris, this won't wash.

---

No. However that is a method of introducing new volatiles into the mantle.

quote:

---

(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.

---

Yup.

quote:

---

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?

---

No. Im telling you I have not seen anything that would objectively determine some things to be different than what we observe today. Where are the geophysical models with direct rate dependencies?I know of some numerical modeling of various geodynamic processes with rate dependencies like with the thermal evolution of oceanic lithosphere, but in that instance, the method and rate of heat transfer could dramatically increase. Where are similar models for the quantity of surface volcanism?

quote:

---

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.

---

Well I don't think you have handled explaining just how problematic it is. Why does PT expect exactly the quantity of volcanism occurring and why would the record of it differ in CPT?-Chris Grose

---

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.

quote:

---

Where does the energy come from to move continents fast enough to fit within the biblical flood time frame? (It is not acceptable to start "stretching out" CPT beyond the biblical flood time frame because then we have the "enough water to cover Everest problem". Also, how is CPT different from plain old PT if we allow this explanation?)

---

Probably mantle convection and basal drag.

quote:

---

What is the disposition of the excess kinetic and heat energy, assuming question 1 is satisfied and CPT does in fact occur?

---

what excess kinetic and heat energy?-Chris Grose

---

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.

Mantle convection explains PT, it does not explain CPT. You have to get enough energy to move the plates to approximately where they are now within the biblical flood time frame - a couple of years at most.Moving continents around at high speeds is going to result in excess energy in the form of kinetic and heat energy. This is the basic principle of the conservation of matter and energy.

Does it take energy to start continents moving?Does it take energy to keep continents moving?Does that energy need to be supplied constantly to maintain movement?Does it take energy to slow down and stop continents?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

"Does it take energy to start continents moving?"Yes"Does it take energy to keep continents moving?"Yes, because of friction (generates heat)"Does that energy need to be supplied constantly to maintain movement?"Isn't this the same question?
Yes, because of friction (generates heat)"Does it take energy to slow down and stop continents?"Not if the continents collide. Then kinetic and heat energy are released.

quote:

---

Mantle convection explains PT, it does not explain CPT. You have to get enough energy to move the plates to approximately where they are now within the biblical flood time frame - a couple of years at most.
Moving continents around at high speeds is going to result in excess energy in the form of kinetic and heat energy. This is the basic principle of the conservation of matter and energy.

---

Um, no. You are just refering to the energy required, not the 'excess' energy--ie, the energy beyond that which can be considered 'too much'. Furthermore, if you have not been reading the thread, we have been discussing this (see post 104). I don't see why I can't get "enough" energy and I can't see why there would be too much energy, but evidently you have done some calculations? If not your just guessing--and my guess is as good as yours. If you can't supply calculations, can you at least explain why there would be insufficient energy to move the continents and/or why there would be excess energy as a result of them moving? I've briefly touched on the geodynamics of their movement in post 104.-Chris Grose

---

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.

There are at least a couple significant problems. The first is that you require almost all the magnetic reversals of the past half billion years to take place in a single year. If geophysicists are correct that the earth's magnetic field derives from processes related to mantle flow within the earth, then you require these processes to operate at a rate that is at least several orders of magnitude higher than at present. This is the same solution that CPT people propose for everything, that all the geological events of the past half billion years actually happened just the way the evidence says it happened, only millions of times faster. There's no evidence of this, and because it so obviously violates known physical laws it only takes a second's consideration to discard such a ridiculous notion.The second is that a rapidly changing magnetic field is not consistent with the radiometric data that says they only happen on average every half million years or so. I know CPT proposes dramatic changes in physical laws, but there is no evidence that any such changes ever happened, or even could happen. That's why CPT is a non-starter.Another significant problem is heat. CPT has half a billion years worth of red-hot sea floor emerging from oceanic ridges in less than a single year. Say what? Is this like where you thought I promised you geomagretic data? I'm just going to chalk this up to another one of your fantasies. It's nice that you think that, but you haven't shown yourself to be a particularly astute or accurate interpreter of the literature. "The New Uniformitarianism" is the subtitle of a book. "Catastrophic uniformitarianism" is an oxymoron.Uniformitarianism is not a concept of modern geology. Modern geologists do not think of themselves as uniformitarians. The term is used today by Creationists to make geologists seem boneheaded for excluding the possibility of rapid change. Because rapid change is incorporated within modern geology, application of the term uniformitarian is not accurate, and hasn't been for quite some time. I don't own these books, Chris. If you'd like to provide some lengthy excerpts I can give you my opinion about what they're saying, but I doubt uniformitarianism is making a comback. Modern geology's view of the manner and rates at which geological processes operate is far too varied for the uniformitarian label to be accurate or appropriate, and that's been true for a long time. I am bringing your misleading and inaccurate use of the word to your attention and asking you to stop.The rest of your post fills in some of the missing details in your view of how things work, though you didn't describe how the 10²⁸ joules figure you threw out there was determined, and none of your heat arguments were quantitative, but since your proposals still require violations of physical laws and since you still have no evidence for this, CPT is a non-starter.--Percy

Chris, it's your theory, so you or someone on the CPT side is supposed to have done the calculations. Stop cricisizing others for trying to fill in the gaps that you have so far neglected to fill in. It's your theory, it's incumbent upon you to provide the calculations. But that's the whole problem, Chris. You're guessing because you have no evidence. And because your guess requires violations of physical laws for which you also have no evidence, your guess is *not* as good as mine.Please supply the missing heat calculations so that we may examine them.--Percy

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.

quote:

---

There are at least a couple significant problems. The first is that you require almost all the magnetic reversals of the past half billion years to take place in a single year. If geophysicists are correct that the earth's magnetic field derives from processes related to mantle flow within the earth, then you require these processes to operate at a rate that is at least several orders of magnitude higher than at present. This is the same solution that CPT people propose for everything, that all the geological events of the past half billion years actually happened just the way the evidence says it happened, only millions of times faster. There's no evidence of this, and because it so obviously violates known physical laws it only takes a second's consideration to discard such a ridiculous notion.

​

The second is that a rapidly changing magnetic field is not consistent with the radiometric data that says they only happen on average every half million years or so. I know CPT proposes dramatic changes in physical laws, but there is no evidence that any such changes ever happened, or even could happen.

---

CPT does not propose changes in physical laws, with the exception of radioisotopic decay. And actually there is a very good plausible mechanism for rapid reversals in CPT. Research and computer simulations by Glatzmaier et al.(1999) strongly suggest a correlation between the frequency of geomagnetic reversals and a heterogenous heat flux across the core-mantle boundary (CMB). Lateral variations in temperatures in the lower mantle can vary by hundreds of degrees Kelvin over distances of 10^3 km, however convection in the fluid outer core is much more efficient at mixing material and distributing temperatures evenly(Glatzermier, 1999); lateral temperature variations in the core therefore do not exceed 0.001 K. This causes variation in patterns of heat conduction from the core to the mantle, resulting in slightly cooler core fluid, on average, below cool mantle, and warmer fluid below warm mantle. "These forces, together with Coriolis forces (due to the component of the fluid flow perpendicular to the Earth's rotation vector) and Lorentz forces (due to the component of the electric current perpendicular to the magnetic field), drive complicated time-dependent circulations, providing a convective heat flux within the core that accommodates the imposed non-uniform conductive heat flux out of the core at the CMB."(Glatzmaier et al., 1999)Glatzmaier et al. performed computer simulations with eight different, time-independent, patterns of radial heat flux through the CMB. Among the variable CMB heat flow simulations was one case of uniform heat flow and a case with heat flow values based on seismic tomography of the lowermost mantle for today's Earth, the remaining cases imposed simple radial patterns of heat flow. Much of the behavior of the geomagnetic field in several of the simulations resembles that seen in the paleomagnetic record very well (eg. significant decreases in the dipole moment during reversals and excursions). In the simulations there are observed correlations between variable heat flux's and the frequency of geomagnetic reversals over time.During CPT, mantle material is redistributed through large scale convection rather quickly. Oceanic lithosphere subducted into the mantle also reaches the CMB. This would result in lateral variations in temperature much higher than that currently observed. In Glatzmaier's simulations, the thermal and time constraints on various presupposed parameters relevant to the evolution of the geomagnetic field would therefore be far more extreme than would have to be considered in any simulation of the geodynamo during CPT. For instance, in Glatzmaier's simulations the total heat flow out of the core is maintained at 7.2 x 10^12 W. The magnetic dipole diffusion time is assumed to be constant at 20,000 years. For all cases they fixed the peak heat flux variability at 44.6 mW m-2 relative to the mean. All of these values would be expected to change significantly during runaway. The geometry of the outer core would also be expected to deform as cold mantle material sank to the CMB and hot mantle buoyed to the upper mantle.It is well substantiated in Glatzmaier et al.(1999) that a variable temperature distribution across the CMB may very well correlate with the changing frequencies of geomagnetic reversals over time. This would explain the observed trend seen in the geomagnetic polarity timescale (GPTS) over the 160 Myr time span.Buffett [1999] asserts:
"...the simulations clearly demonstrate that changes in heat flow conditions can strongly influence the behaviour of the magnetic field. In particular, the change in behaviour appears to be sufficient to explain the variations observed in Fig. 1.[showing the change in frequency of magnetic reversals over ~160 My of geologic time](Buffet, 1999)"Ocean basins open and close and mantle convection occurs on the same timescales (10^8 years) as the trend in the geomagnetic data appears to operate on. The redistribution of cold oceanic lithosphere in the mantle, especially around the CMB coupled with the heat dissipating processes of releasing gravitational potential energy and of viscous heating of downwelling and upwelling plume heads will without a doubt result in extreme compositional and temperature variations accross the CMB. To this a rapidly reversing geodynamo comes at little surprise and is therefore evidence for CPT. The geomagnetic data itself cannot be evidence against CPT without the direct aid of radioisotopic data. CPT therefore explains the geomagnetic data, but not the radioisotopipc data as far as I am aware.Lowrie, William, Fundamentals of Geophysics, 1997
Glatzmaier et al. Nature, Vol 401, 28 October 1999. pp 885-890.

quote:

---

Oh please, I didn't tell you that you should learn to walk before you run when you were completely confused as to what fundamentally causes subduction.

​

Say what? Is this like where you thought I promised you geomagretic data? I'm just going to chalk this up to another one of your fantasies.

---

No, you clearly were confused and I responded to point out your confusion here [italic emphasis and "percy:" and "me:", mine]:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Percy: Not to mention that the oceanic crust is less dense than the mantle you have it falling into. This would never happen. Subduction only occurs because the oceanic crust, being more dense than continental crust, is forced beneath it and down into the mantle where it eventually becomes part of the mantle.

---

Me:Um, ok, no this is not accurate. The oceanic lithosphere has a material composition that at equal temperature is less dense than mantle rock, but the lithosphere is colder than mantle rock by over 1000 K and this results in a higher actual density. Subduction is not only a result of collision with continents whose crust is less dense than oceanic crust. It always has a higher density than underlying mantle. The reason it doesn't just subduct somewhere else is because the lithosphere is a rigid platform. The gravitational forces due to negative buoyancy would have to exceed its elastic strength. Yes collision with less dense continents cause subduction because it causes the plate to flex and bend toward the mantle, but the ocean plate does not try to bouey underneat the continents--it has negative buoyancy relative to the mantle and so continues to slide into the mantle. Have you heard of the tectonic force of slab pull?

---

You were clearly confused on a fundamental of geology and geodynamics.

quote:

---

It's nice that you think that, but you haven't shown yourself to be a particularly astute or accurate interpreter of the literature. "The New Uniformitarianism" is the subtitle of a book. "Catastrophic uniformitarianism" is an oxymoron.

---

Tell that to Lemon and Ager.. You might want to inform them of their error...

quote:

---

Uniformitarianism is not a concept of modern geology. Modern geologists do not think of themselves as uniformitarians.

---

I know that..thats why it isn't just "uniformitarianism", it is "modern" or "the new" or "catastrophic" uniformitarianism.

quote:

---

I don't own these books, Chris. If you'd like to provide some lengthy excerpts I can give you my opinion about what they're saying, but I doubt uniformitarianism is making a comback. Modern geology's view of the manner and rates at which geological processes operate is far too varied for the uniformitarian label to be accurate or appropriate, and that's been true for a long time.

---

This is known. That is why it isn't just "uniformitarianism". The modern view is a a mix of 'uniformitarian' and 'catastrophic' geologic behavior:

quote:

---

Ager (1981) suggested that what is emerging now is a new doctrine in geology, perhapse described as "catastrophic uniformitarianism" and summed up by the phrase "the history of any one part of the earth, like the life of a soldier, consists of long periods of boredom and short periods of terror."

​

Lemon, Roy R., Principles of Sedimentology, 1990. pp. 31.

---

The second chapter of the book is entitled "The New Uniformitarianism". Maybe you should find his e-mail address and tell him that he is erroring by advocating oxymoronic doctrines..

quote:

---

The rest of your post fills in some of the missing details in your view of how things work, though you didn't describe how the 10^28 joules figure you threw out there was determined...

---

I already told you, it is the total heat production in the mantle due to the release of gravitional potential energy and viscous heating. I further told you that you should look it up for yourself in Baumgardners work as it is available online.. If you do not have the intuition to do a little research to answer your own questions, don't expect me to do it for you.

quote:

---

and none of your heat arguments were quantitative

---

What heat arguments? Explain and refute.

quote:

---

but since your proposals still require violations of physical laws and since you still have no evidence for this, CPT is a non-starter.

---

physical law(s)? If you have anything besides the radioisotopic decay rate (which you appear to have since you said 'laws', plural), I suggest you present it.-Chris Grose

---

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.

quote:

---

Chris, it's your theory, so you or someone on the CPT side is supposed to have done the calculations. Stop cricisizing others for trying to fill in the gaps that you have so far neglected to fill in. It's your theory, it's incumbent upon you to provide the calculations.

---

The onus is always on the person making the assertion, whether it be for or against. Someone else was criticizing CPT saying that it would produce too much heat through basal friction. The assertion was given as is and without backing. It is not required for me to refute the assertion if it has not been shown to really be a problem. It has not been show to actually be a problem. Im sorry if you don't like the burden to be on you because I know none of you really care about doing much of your own research but the onus is still on the person making the claims.I have countered the assertion or 'guess' with another 'guess' based on how basal drag would effect deformation.

quote:

---

But that's the whole problem, Chris. You're guessing because you have no evidence.

---

Um no. I issued a guess in response to a guess. Apparently, that means neither have evidence for or against basal drag resulting in excess frictionaly dissipated heat! This is what I have been trying to say. Therefore, the initial assertion against CPT is meaningless and unsubstantiated.

quote:

---

And because your guess requires violations of physical laws for which you also have no evidence

---

How does my guess regarding basal drag and the type of deformation occuring at the boundary layer violating physical laws?? Do you know what you are talking about?

quote:

---

Please supply the missing heat calculations so that we may examine them.

---

When I have time I might do this independently (if I can figure out how to do such a calculation), but I won't at the moment because I don't need to. I don't need to counter a straw man argument with more than just straw.-Chris GroseThis message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-09-2005 03:59 PM

---

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.

quote:

---

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?

---

I presume so.

quote:

---

Yes, MERELY gases and aerosols from a small (compared to CPT) eruption that altered the climate of Europe, thousands of miles away in 1789(?).

---

I am not aware of this as I have said earlier that I have not studied it in detail.

quote:

---

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)?

---

What would this produce differently in the geologic record that could be used as evidence in either favor?

quote:

---

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.

---

I didn't say that. I said you need a numerical model that shows you how the rate of these processes directly effects the observed quantity of volcanism in the geologic record because you are saying that the quantity would be different if subduction and seafloor spreading were faster. I am not debating the constant radius of the earth and the relative rate of subduction and seafloor spreading.

quote:

---

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.

---

A quantity is a reference to a number. Lets see numbers.

quote:

---

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.

---

So much for refuting my points re: folding, but I thought you were wrong anyway.-Chris Grose

---

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.