Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Shock Dynamic Theory of Craton Formation
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 1 of 11 (699156)
05-15-2013 2:37 AM


A New Interpretation of Cratons
I have just read a large portion of this interesting article that is highly referenced to actual geologic journals. It goes into the deficiencies of current theories regarding the formation of cratons and the crust in general. It then presents the theory that meteorite impacts were the mechanism by which the ancient cratons were formed. I would like the opinions of Pressie, RoxRKool and Petrophysics1 on this. Dr Adequate's opinion would also be welcomed since he has quite a bit of knowledge in geology.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Pressie, posted 05-15-2013 9:17 AM foreveryoung has seen this message but not replied
 Message 4 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-15-2013 11:43 AM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 7 by Pressie, posted 05-16-2013 12:35 AM foreveryoung has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


(8)
Message 5 of 11 (699171)
05-15-2013 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Dr Adequate
05-15-2013 11:43 AM


I guess I didn't read it that carefully. Now, I am embarrassed. I didn't realize he was a creationist. I didn't read the part where he took on radiometric dating. I was just fascinated by reading the various problems like the preservation of cratonic keels in the presence of mantle convection. I thought with all the references, it had to be something serious. My apologies.
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-15-2013 11:43 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by NoNukes, posted 05-15-2013 1:54 PM foreveryoung has seen this message but not replied
 Message 8 by Pressie, posted 05-16-2013 12:49 AM foreveryoung has seen this message but not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


(1)
Message 9 of 11 (699245)
05-16-2013 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Pressie
05-16-2013 12:35 AM


It certainly shows he was not careful with his statements. He probably had no idea that the Limpopo Belt was older than the Kaapvaal Craton. This means that there was an older landmass that formed the Limpopo Belt that has since eroded away. It is easier reading the net articles than it is reading the actual literature in many cases. The literature seems to be written by PhD's many times and contains technical language I have never encountered. But, as you said, you run the risk of coming across nutcases because anyone can say anything they want on the net.
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Pressie, posted 05-16-2013 12:35 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Pressie, posted 05-16-2013 1:18 PM foreveryoung has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 11 of 11 (699289)
05-16-2013 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Pressie
05-16-2013 1:18 PM


Re: Eroded away?
I didn't mean the belt eroded away. I meant that the landmass or craton that created the belt eroded away. Since it is made of highly metamorphosed material, something had to push against it horizontally a long time ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Pressie, posted 05-16-2013 1:18 PM Pressie has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024