Now I know that Alfred Wegener`s theory is wrong!

I agree with this, let's have a look at some worldwide maps of primary gold occurences for precambrian, paleozoic, mesazoic, and cenezoic rocks.Minelinks.comMinelinks.comMinelinks.comMinelinks.comBoy did he leave out a lot to make it match his "theory".Not only that but his concept of veins make from liquid gold is wierd. I don't think he has ever seen any ore veins, and I've never seen that anywhere. This doesn't match any gold deposits I've looked at, including near Kirkland Lake, Ont.,Sudbury,Ont., north of Lac La Ronge, in the Black Hills, in Colorado near Boulder, Central City, Idaho Springs, Georgetown, Cripple Creek(a gold telluride ore), Creed, Ouray, Silverton, Telluride and the Carlin gold deposits in Nevada.Here is a quick paper on the Carlin and Wit gold deposits. Quite a bit has been done since 2006 and my wife wrote a paper and presented a talk on the Carlin type gold deposits for her graduate seminar in ore deposits, they identified three periods of mineralization and enrichment.Sorry I haven't looked at more gold deposits but spent the last 35 as a petroleum exploration geologist, mineral deposits are a hobby.Geotimes - April 2006 - The Rush to Uncover Gold‘s OriginsThis plate tectonics model also doesn't match the paleogeography we see from actually measuring sections, mapping formations, dating the rocks.Here is a good site you can track the rocks/paleogeography of various ages over North America or worldwide:http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/regionaltext.htmlI've found it to be rather accurate when comparing it to work I've done exploring for oil and gas deposits in many basins.Rox, I know you know about this and decided to post to you instead of wasting my time trying to give someone a graduate degree for free.Thought some here might check the links out and learn something.Edited by petrophysics1, : added a link I forgot

No, you don't get to do this.As a geologist you must explain what is happening here through all the time frames, that would be through the precambrian, paleozoic, mesazoic,and cenezoic and explain the vertical and horizontal distribution of the rocks and correlate them and show how the ore deposits occured.This is basic EXPLORATION geology not only for mineral deposits but for oil and gas as well.When I posted those four links, I KNEW you would pick the Cenozoic.
Why?
Because I saw it most supported your theory. Sorry, you have to look at everything, and stop only looking at what you like. Everything MUST be considered.Give me your "theory" which explains all FOUR maps, accounts for the vertical and horizontal distribution of rocks and explains it in time sequence. Edited by petrophysics1, : edit for better understanding for a non english speaker

Once again, you cannot do this.Ediacaran age fossils can only be found where Ediacaran rocks of the proper type/depositional environment are EXPOSED on the surface. This has NOTHING to do with all the places in the world where these rocks exist but are buried under the surface and you cannot look at to see if they have fossils.Where we have rocks exposed on the surface has NOTHING to do with the LIVING distribution of Ediacaran fossils.No one is going to dig up Ediacaran age rocks that are 50, 100, 5000 or 30,000 ft below the surface to see if these fossils are there.Your map means nothing.That you did this shows me you do not have an understanding of basic geology.Otherwise show me why you made a map for the living distribution of Ediacaran fossils only based upon where surface exposures of these fossils occured.What about all the subsurface areas where these rocks exist, are there Ediacaran fossils there?Well you don't know. So your map of their living distribution means nothing, and doesn't support your "theory".Once again a very basic error.Want people to listen to you, show them you know what you are talking about.