Evolution in the Anarctic

quote:

---

--Mind you, the plate of antarctica during the time of pangea was stretching into a polar region.

---

JM: How does a creationist arrive at Pangea?CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"JM: How does a creationist arrive at Pangea?"
--Plate tectonics, and it explains why we have magnetic anomalies in the ocean lithospheric basalt plates, which cooperates with a continental drift, in which you end up at a connection of the continents into a land mass which is known as Pangea.

​

---

JM: Wait a minute...Don't gloss over the details. Explain which magnetic stripes and how creationists used these to arrive at a Pangea configuration. Be specific in your answer. Explain how you arrived at time etc. You see, you have a real problem with your magnetic stripe story that you haven't been able to see. I want the details in order to hang you out to dry unless, of course, you realize it yourself. So, let's have the details of reconstructing all of Pangea according to Tc's hypothesis. Take your time, but give exact details. Be sure to corroborate your story with the land record of reversals.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--I'll be as specific as my current references allow, my best is of the lithospheric basalt polarity variegation is 'The historical atlas of the earth - Gould et al.'.
--I would consider some things such as erosion of the continental shelves, which would very likely have been at sea level at the time because of this effect it is a plausable inference. Considering the Mid-Atlantic ridge we see that there is reversing polarity indications in basalt in such striped fasions, the youngest crusting the ridge and the oldest outwardly. Knowing the effects of such polarity anomalies, that they occur in striped fasion, and that it continues today known by continental drift and sea-floor spreading. We come to a conjunction of, Eurasia, Africa, North America, Africa, and Antarctica. Thus, what we know as Pangea.
--Is there an error in my logic?

---

JM: Of course there is an error in your logic insofaras you wanting it to fit within a young earth scenario. You say 'as far as my references allow'. I suspect you are drawing out the parts you like and disregarding the implications that hurt your hypothesis. I am willing to wait for you to think this one all the way through and answer questions as needed. The problem is this 'selective' filter you are placing on the data. The magnetic anomalies on the ocean floor are part of a much larger story that you are ignoring. In fact, your acceptance of the anomalies already puts a hole in your young earth argument from simple physical principles.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

--I am most interested in seeing how this is so. Please tell me Joe, what is it that I am missing or ignoring?

---

JM: Umm, I just told you. Please explain the physical process of magnetization in rocks, describe the physical process of how that magnetization is symmetric about the ridge. Describe why the sedimentary sequences on land show the same signature as in the ocean floor and finally, explain all of this in the context of a global flood. You see, you have an overly simplistic view of magnetostratigraphy and tectonics in general. Such things are not 'healed' on bulletin boards such as these. You are getting grief, not so much because of your young earth stance, but because you don't understand how your arguments actually negate themselves. So, I say once again, grab those references I gave you and learn a bit more about the subject. Then come back and you won't make the same mistakes. At the very least, your arguments will be more learned and you might get useful dialogue. Quite frankly, this is how your argument sounds to people who have studied the subject:Imagine:Person A: Hi, you don't look so good.Person B: Well, I don't feel so good.Person A: I've read a couple of medical books written for the layman and an introductory physiology book.Person B: Gee, I don't know if that means you know what you're doing.Person A: Sure, the bible says all you need is faith. Now let me have a look at you.Person B: I dunno.Person A: I remember my references saying to check lymph nodes for infection. Lemme try.Person B: HEY! Those aren't my lymph nodes!Person A: Well, maybe it's your gall bladder!Person B: I thought the gall bladder was right here?Person A: No, it's able to move quite a bit. Let's listen to your heart.Person B: Aren't you using the wrong end of that thing?and on it goes...CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"TC,whats the rate of continental shifting please?"
--The rate of 'continental shifting', or 'mid-oceanic sea-floor spreading', is currently estimated at about 1-2 inches a year, though other ridges have separation rates 5-10 times more rapid such as the East-Pacific rise. If I am in a car and I speed to 100mph on a slightly sloped road, and shift into neutral, I'm going to start to slow down, pretty soon you will be going quite slowely compaired to your rapid advancement some time back. So what is the argument?

​

---

JM: Your argument is internally inconsistent with the observations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:
I'm not a geologist myself TC and neither are you so my objection to your theory stems from the fact that actual geologists completely disagree with it. You accuse them of assuming uniformitarianism and that may be true,to some extent,although,as i said,i doubt that you are the first to raise this issue. It is more likely that people have accepted the assumption of uniformitarianism AFTER pondering long and hard on the question and deciding that this assumption was quite valid. And you have your own pre-conceived assumptions,mind you. You assume that the Bible is the word of God and as such that no explanation that contradicts biblical teachings can be true. Because lets face it,TC,the pre conceived assumption of the Bible being INNERANT is the basis of creationism or creation science,whatever you call it. So i dont really think its fair for you to "condemn" others for doing roughly the same thing you do.

---

JM: Well, I am a geologist and I my objection to TC's idea has to do with the fact that it has not been well thought out. His a priori assumption that you can squeeze everything into a much shorter time span has implications. He refuses to delve into those implications. I don't know why. Perhaps because the overly naive and simplistic view is easier to accept or that he is simply not capable of understanding how his entire hypothesis falls apart when delving into specifics. This is a general problem with creationists. To the outside world, the 'glossed over' explanation might even sound reasonable. The problem is with Tc and other creationists is that their house is built of straw. When the big bad reality wolf comes huffing and puffing, their house falls apart. They, like the pigs living in the straw house, live in oblivious bliss because it feels good. I've pointed TC in the direction of the details, but given his penchant for not reading the material (re his defense of Humphrey's) he's not likely to recognize the egregious errors in his analysis.CheersJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 03-21-2002]