|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Wegener and Evidence for Continental Drift | |||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Personal conversations? Egad, this is worse than I thought! Did Baumgardner tell you about the heat his model necessarily generates? Did he explain to you that he uses totally unrealistic values for mantle viscosity, etc.?
quote: Not flawless! LOL!
quote: You haven't been reading this thread. Wegener had no mechanism.
quote: What a bunch of tripe! You admit to inconsistencies and then cover them up with a parroted litany that makes no sense whatever! Why not just admit it: the model doesn't work!
quote: Why does this matter? You could just as easily say the CPT is not contradicted by all the evidence up to Magellan. Why do you have to ignore modern data to make your model believable?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 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 1736 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: And the complete lack of any geological evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: This is exactly Percy's point. First, uniformitarianism gives us information that you insist on ignoring. Second, your model requires a 'violation of that assumption' and you don't really have anything FOR cpt. He does not ask you to 'shut doors'. He is asking you to open a single door for cpt. Besides, I think Wegener had mor data than most of us think. I will research this by next weekend if not tonight. I believe he did some research into corresponding rock types, tectonic terranes, and fossil assemblages on parts of the continents that the thought would have fit together.
quote: That's funny, because it sure isn't all destroyed according to field data...
quote: Not at all. First, we have taken actual sample of water and rock from the hot springs vent. Second, not all parts of a ridge are as active as the hotspots. Most of the ridge is quite cold at any given time. And temperatures drop off suddenly in the near 0deg seawater.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: I was talking about the Wegener part of the discussion. It is clear that Wegener had several lines of clear evidence for continental drift that could be explained in a paragraph or so. All Percy, I think, wants is to know what your corresponding evidence is.
quote: It is wrong. You neglect the fact that some 'pre-flud' oceanic crust is now incorporated into the continents. I have seen it in many diverse places. Such as Devonian oceanic crust in Alaska and Oregon.
quote: You wrote: "All of the pre-flood oceanic lithosphere has been destroyed ..." The statement is demonstrably incorrect. The amount is not trivial when compared to the amount of information we can glean from it.
quote: You were talking about how difficult it would be to observe and sample the mid-ocean ridges. This was wrong also.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Where did you get this? No one asked for unequivocal evidence. They asked for any evidence.
quote: Then what the XXXX are we doing here? Perhaps you need to stop making wild assertions about evidence for cpt.
quote: Try us. C'mon, TC, we'eve been waiting for over 60 posts! Humor us a bit. [This message has been edited by edge, 05-29-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
At several points in this thread, TC has determinedly pointed out that modern cpt enthusiasts are in a similar position to Wegener when he trotted out the original continental drift theory in the 30's. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Here is a quote from a book that I am presently in the middle of.
According to 'Krakatoa' by Simon Winchester, continental drift became an obsession with Wegener: "He looked for support for the idea. He carefully examined the observations of other scientists and the conclusion of ther fields--he looked at geology, at paleontology, at paleoclimatology and (most importantly for this story) at Sclater's and Wallace's new-fangled zoogeography and biogeography. He wanted to see if there was any hard evidence to back his idea that the continents had somehow moved from their inital positons to where they are now. "And he found plenty, some of it hard and convincing, an some of it circumstantial and tempting , much of it vague and alluring. The easier evidence comprised those existing mountain ranges, coal deposits, and fossil appearances that were to be found on the far sides of the oceans, right across from the obvious 'fits': when maps of the continents were pushed together to fit properly. Then the ranges and outcrops of exploitable minerals and the lines of ammonites, trilobites an skeins fo graptolitic shales themselves also slotted together perfectly, like pieces of a gigantic jigsaw puzzle." I think we can say that Wegener did his homework. He had some hard evidence, that was impossible to refute, but the general science community simply could not accept the idea that terra firma was not so firm. He had plenty of evidence but no mechanism and was roundly criticized. This is similar to the position that cpt supporters find themselves today, except that they have NOT done their homework and, as TC has admitted, they have NO hard evidence. Not even 'vague and alluring' evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Perhaps I misunderstood what TC meant. No surprise there. In that case, however, I fail to see the point. The CPT is compatible with the early notions of a theory from 70 years ago? Not much to recommend it, I would say.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Yes, he tends to ignore the negative information. Wegener really had no negative evidence against his idea other than the fact that no one could imagine a mechanism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Wrong. By omission, but still wrong. There was plenty of other geological evidence that there was no biblical flood. Numerous geologists had disavowed the flood long before Wegener. Wegener himself was not concerned with a flood, so all he was trying to show was the fact of continental drift. To say that his evidence does not rule out a flood is deceiving.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Sorry, TC, but this is not even good speculation. Please point out the subduction zones and divergent plate boundaries on Venus.
quote: Nonsense. There is no evidence of the rate of tectonism in Wegener's evidence. There is also evidence preexisting Wegener that denies CPT, which you speciously ignore.
quote: And it, too, denies any diagnostic evidence for CPT.
quote: But you would have to worry about other lines of evidence, like the rate of cooling of plutons and the relative ages of intrusive rocks that already had convinced geologists of an old earth. Wegener also had the principle of uniformitarianism which is a source of evidence against CPT. You statement is simple-minded and ignores surrounding data.
quote: Yes, no mechanism, no evidence for it, and its violation of various geological principles doesn't bode well for CPT.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Nope.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: It doesn't. In fact, the term 'authigenic sedimentation' doesn't make much sense, either.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024