Wegener and Evidence for Continental Drift

quote:

---

--[1] - The mechanism is one of, or both radiogenic heat or gravitational potential energy (multiple personal conversations with Dr. John Baumgardner have led me to a new appreciation of his version of Catastrophic Plate Tectonics) of the subducting slab.

---

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:

---

I had earlier suspected that radiogenic heat would be the initiation as well as the sustenance of rapid plate motion during CPT, though some of my analyses have hinted that this may be incorrect. It is probably just the initiation perturbation of mantle rheology, the rest of the course of CPT must have been due to the mechanism of gravitational potential energy and resultant trench pull. Obviously this mechanism as a whole is not flawless (especially in my juvenile mind) though I think I and the rest of that oh so small YECist geophysical community is on the right track.

---

Not flawless! LOL!

quote:

---

--[2] - If mind serves me right, virtually all evidences up until the works of Wegener (1946) are equivocally agreeable with current mainstream views on plate tectonics (and continental drift) and YECist Catastrophic Plate Tectonics. Everything from the similarity in shape between the west and east coasts of Africa and South America, Glaciation events and tropical climates in anomalous places are also easily explained. Relict Mountain Ranges, and fossil type correspondence. Our mechanism for CPT is obviously much more plausible than that given by Wegener at the time.

---

You haven't been reading this thread. Wegener had no mechanism.

quote:

---

--The main inconsistencies within the dynamics and mechanics of CPT theory come out of detailed geophysical analysis. In particular the effects of heat and the distribution of radioisotopes pre-flood and post-flood as well as the possibility for isotopic fractionation in the earth with different locations for tendencies to concentrate.

---

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:

---

--What evidence was presented up until the time of Wegener which contradicts that given by CPT and YECists 'flood' mechanics? (or have you been watching Hovind tapes?)

---

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?

quote:

---

"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.?"

​

--So which one is it edge? 'unrealistic' mantle viscosities, or excess heat? Certainly you know the relation..

---

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:

---

"You haven't been reading this thread. Wegener had no mechanism."

​

--I've read this thread, but what have you been reading? Wegener most definitely proposed a mechanism when he expounded on current (at that time) theories for continental drift. He suggested that tidal forces or forces associated with the rotation of the Earth were responsible for the breakup of pangea and subsequent continental drift.

---

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:

---

"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!

​

--Because that would be taking gross advantage over my inexperience in geophysics...

---

Then one might be wise to live and learn a bit before making wild assertions.

quote:

---

"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.

---

Then you agree that the model is completely unrealistic. You are being unusually reasonable today.

quote:

---

"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'?

---

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:

---

"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.

---

Well, let's just say that as long as you don't ignore other lines of evidence that completely negate your hypothesis.

quote:

---

"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.

---

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.

quote:

---

"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.

---

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!

quote:

---

The only real difficulties with CPT geophysics are the problems of heat transfer and related.

---

And the complete lack of any geological evidence.

quote:

---

--All of what you list are dependent on radiometric data and the uniformitarian assumption--CPT proposes a violation of that assumption and radiometric data is thereofor equivocal evidence. but sure, you can argue all you want that it is 'evidence', it just doesn't shut any doors.

---

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:

---

--All of the pre-flood oceanic lithosphere has been destroyed at its corresponding subduction zone.

---

That's funny, because it sure isn't all destroyed according to field data...

quote:

---

--Yes, but if mind serves me right, at those distances from the ridge it would be ridiculous to try and measure differences in sediment thickness on such a scale since virtually no sediment is deposited there. Assuming you could even accurately measure sediment deposited on such hellish terrain.

---

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.

quote:

---

--No edge, that didn't seem like that was Percy's point because he wanted more evidence (thats why he considers sedimentary thickness to be good evidence all on its own)than just the example of radioisotopic dating.

---

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:

---

--Looking back at where I made my comment, "All of the pre-flood oceanic lithosphere has been destroyed at its corresponding subduction zone" I'm not sure why I made the statement, but it isn't wrong.

---

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:

---

Sure, with every continent to continent collision (eg, the himalayan orogenesis) there are going to be remnants of the previously existing ocean floor, but not a significant portion of its lithosphere.

---

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:

---

--I don't know where this came from:

​

Originally posted by Edge.
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.

---

You were talking about how difficult it would be to observe and sample the mid-ocean ridges. This was wrong also.

quote:

---

--Unequivocal??

---

Where did you get this? No one asked for unequivocal evidence. They asked for any evidence.

quote:

---

I don't have any, I explained this earlier.

---

Then what the XXXX are we doing here? Perhaps you need to stop making wild assertions about evidence for cpt.

quote:

---

Sure there is abundant 'evidence' but not the kind that at the end of the day, you will care about.

---

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]

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.

quote:

---

TC's assertion is that Wegener's evidence is eqally compatible with CPT.
So far it is only an assertion and I haven't seen a lot of reasoning to support it - certainly not on the fossil record. And I can't see why the fossil record should look the same if it was mainly formed in 1 year, rather than over tens of millions of years.

---

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.

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.

quote:

---

--My evidence to compare with wegener's you mean? Well I'd use the same evidence, jigsaw fit of the continents, similar paleoecologies on the east side of South America/Africa, etc. I explain why wegener's evidence is all ambiguous to the question of PT vs. CPT in my last posts.

---

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.

quote:

---

--vague and alluring evidence, I think the venusian evidence is qualifies there.

---

Sorry, TC, but this is not even good speculation. Please point out the subduction zones and divergent plate boundaries on Venus.

quote:

---

I also think that all of that which Wegener has qualifies as my vague and alluring evidence.

---

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:

---

All of the rest of that evidence supporting the motions of the continents is my vague and alluring evidence. Its difficult to come by hard evidence because geophysics has advanced itself so much these days.

---

And it, too, denies any diagnostic evidence for CPT.

quote:

---

I wouldn't have had to deal with plenty of the current paradigms of CPT if we were living in Wegener's day.

---

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:

---

But then again, CPT would never have much of what it has today if we were living in Wegener's day too...such as a mechanism. Ahh yes, the conundrums of Young Earth Geodynamics.

---

Yes, no mechanism, no evidence for it, and its violation of various geological principles doesn't bode well for CPT.

quote:

---

I don't think "ice rafted" and "authigenic" are supposed to go that close together.

​

--Why not? They're both localized sedimentation.

---

Nope.

quote:

---

--Authigenic sedimentation in the deep sea is majorly dominated by hydrothermal sediments and manganese nodules, at least if mind serves me right.

---

It doesn't. In fact, the term 'authigenic sedimentation' doesn't make much sense, either.