Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (9005 total)
54 online now:
AZPaul3, xongsmith (2 members, 52 visitors)
Newest Member: kanthesh
Post Volume: Total: 881,225 Year: 12,973/23,288 Month: 698/1,527 Week: 137/240 Day: 26/10 Hour: 1/1

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   20 Questions... (from Walt Brown to evolutionists)
Posts: 3832
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 5.5

Message 46 of 46 (78794)
01-15-2004 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by lpetrich
01-15-2004 9:07 PM

Re: Andes Mountains built by plate tectonics, not volcanism
Your cited article is pretty brief, so a searched around more, and found (to my surprise) that the origins history of the Andes Mountains is much more complex than I thought, and processes that formed one part of the chain may well be very different that the processes that formed other parts of the chain. Shamefully, I fell victim to an oversimplified vision of things.

I must concede, that tectonic uplift seems to be a very big part of the picture, in at least some areas of the Andes. It seems pretty hard to track down a good summary of what the relative contributions of volcanism and tectonic uplift were, in the big picture, in giving the mountains their great height. I still suspect that straight volcanism was sometimes the major component, but I may be wrong.

I'll now plead "too much ignorance", and drop any further discussion of the Andes formation. I await the opinion of a real expert on the genesis of the Andes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by lpetrich, posted 01-15-2004 9:07 PM lpetrich has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020