Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   continental drift
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 16 of 65 (7012)
03-16-2002 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by TrueCreation
03-16-2002 11:50 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"someone demonstrate that this kind of drift is possible, and the mechanism driving it."
--Magma upwelling (I'm sure you've studied geology and the pangea breakaway) and heavy oceanic crust pushing against continental plates resulting in rapid subduction.
So, where are the subduction zones bounding the Atlantic Ocean where the oceanic plates are pushing the continents along? Do you really think that you can push lithospheric plates from the spreading zones?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by TrueCreation, posted 03-16-2002 11:50 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by TrueCreation, posted 03-16-2002 1:15 PM edge has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 65 (7018)
03-16-2002 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by edge
03-16-2002 12:29 PM


"So, where are the subduction zones bounding the Atlantic Ocean where the oceanic plates are pushing the continents along?"
--In the Atlantic, If my mind serves me right, there is only one subduction zone and that is above cuba, which is one of the deepest in the world, the pacific plate (the ring of fire) is quite known for its subduction zones encompassing its perimeter. Magma upwelling is what forced the continents to split to form the mid-atlantic ridge and the atlantic ocean.
"Do you really think that you can push lithospheric plates from the spreading zones?"
--Why not? It happens all the time (otherwize the phenomena of plate tectonics would not exist).
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by edge, posted 03-16-2002 12:29 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by gene90, posted 03-16-2002 2:19 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 21 by edge, posted 03-16-2002 8:07 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 18 of 65 (7020)
03-16-2002 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by TrueCreation
03-16-2002 1:15 PM


[QUOTE][b]--In the Atlantic, If my mind serves me right, there is only one subduction zone and that is above cuba, which is one of the deepest in the world, the pacific plate (the ring of fire) is quite known for its subduction zones encompassing its perimeter. Magma upwelling is what forced the continents to split to form the mid-atlantic ridge and the atlantic ocean.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
You seem quite confident of that, but are you sure that the magma upwelling in the mid-ocean ridges is not an effect of the plates drifting apart, rather than the cause?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by TrueCreation, posted 03-16-2002 1:15 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by TrueCreation, posted 03-16-2002 2:31 PM gene90 has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 65 (7021)
03-16-2002 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by gene90
03-16-2002 2:19 PM


"You seem quite confident of that, but are you sure that the magma upwelling in the mid-ocean ridges is not an effect of the plates drifting apart, rather than the cause?"
--I am slightly confident, though I wouldnt come to a conclusion on this without either specific further reading, or discussion. I see no other cause of a 'pulling' effect to start this system off. I am aware that mantle convection would slightly drive a 'pulling' of the lithospheric plates away from the spreading centers. The means of the magma upwelling currently isn't the cause I know of plate divergence, I believe, it may be subduction. Though if my mind serves me correctly, what started this system off is an upwelling mantle by heat weakening the lithospheric plate and eventually rifting pangea. I am quite tired, I may be confused on a segment of this issue.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by gene90, posted 03-16-2002 2:19 PM gene90 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Joe Meert, posted 03-16-2002 7:27 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 20 of 65 (7059)
03-16-2002 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by TrueCreation
03-16-2002 2:31 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--I am slightly confident, though I wouldnt come to a conclusion on this without either specific further reading, or discussion. I see no other cause of a 'pulling' effect to start this system off. I am aware that mantle convection would slightly drive a 'pulling' of the lithospheric plates away from the spreading centers. The means of the magma upwelling currently isn't the cause I know of plate divergence, I believe, it may be subduction. Though if my mind serves me correctly, what started this system off is an upwelling mantle by heat weakening the lithospheric plate and eventually rifting pangea. I am quite tired, I may be confused on a segment of this issue.

JM: Well, let me help you out. The driving forces of the plates don't act alone. They work in harmony. As near as we can tell, the breakup of Pangea started with a huge mantle upwelling and that started the continents breaking apart. There are flood basalt provinces that make up sort of an ancient 'ring of fire' along the present-day Atlantic margins. This is probably the initial cause of Atlantic opening. Here's the problem as I see it. Creationists want to pick and choose the geology that they are willing to believe. For example, if you are going to accept this hypothesis for the initial splitting of the Atlantic, then you must accept the evidence for the synchroneity of the volcanism. In order to do that, you must accept the radiometric ages that attest to the synchroneity and/or the sequence of fossils that help provide a time line for the spreading. So, do you accept this geological conclusion?
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by TrueCreation, posted 03-16-2002 2:31 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by TrueCreation, posted 03-16-2002 10:27 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 21 of 65 (7064)
03-16-2002 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by TrueCreation
03-16-2002 1:15 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
edge: "So, where are the subduction zones bounding the Atlantic Ocean where the oceanic plates are pushing the continents along?"
--In the Atlantic, If my mind serves me right, there is only one subduction zone and that is above cuba, which is one of the deepest in the world, the pacific plate (the ring of fire) is quite known for its subduction zones encompassing its perimeter. Magma upwelling is what forced the continents to split to form the mid-atlantic ridge and the atlantic ocean.
In case you didn't notice, the Cuban trench does not exactly bound the entire Atlantic Ocean. Your earlier statement said that the oceanic crust pushing against the continents would result in rapid subduction as I remember. My point is that this is not always the case. So how does your model work for the Atlantic Ocean?
quote:
"Do you really think that you can push lithospheric plates from the spreading zones?"
--Why not? It happens all the time (otherwize the phenomena of plate tectonics would not exist).
It does? Just because you say so? Don't you think there are other mechanisms? I can think of three others without spraining a neuron. A lack of knowledge helps you overlook numerous facts in the geology of the earth and allow you to reconcile an ad hoc, flimsy concept of plate tectonics.
[This message has been edited by edge, 03-16-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by TrueCreation, posted 03-16-2002 1:15 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by TrueCreation, posted 03-16-2002 10:49 PM edge has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 65 (7070)
03-16-2002 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Joe Meert
03-16-2002 7:27 PM


"JM: Well, let me help you out. The driving forces of the plates don't act alone. They work in harmony. As near as we can tell, the breakup of Pangea started with a huge mantle upwelling and that started the continents breaking apart. There are flood basalt provinces that make up sort of an ancient 'ring of fire' along the present-day Atlantic margins. This is probably the initial cause of Atlantic opening."
--This is what I have read, and it sounds feasible enough for me.
"Here's the problem as I see it. Creationists want to pick and choose the geology that they are willing to believe. For example, if you are going to accept this hypothesis for the initial splitting of the Atlantic, then you must accept the evidence for the synchroneity of the volcanism. In order to do that, you must accept the radiometric ages that attest to the synchroneity and/or the sequence of fossils that help provide a time line for the spreading. So, do you accept this geological conclusion?"
--I agree partly, at first, you asserted that we must accept the sequential deposition of volcanic deposits, I can agree with that. But then you take a down-drop and say that in order to do such a thing, you must accept radiometric dating to 'help provide a time line for the spreading'. This is a problem because you asserted that I must agree with the time-scale on deposition if I am to agree on the order and synchrony of this order. To illustrate this:
This is my time-scale:
-------------------
1--2--3--4--5--6--7
And this is your time-scale:
-------------------------------------
1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7
--You see, I can agree with the order at which events arose or a sertain form of sediment deposit was deposited, just as you can. Though I need not to agree on the time scale that you input into when these events took place. A shorter usually takes somthing such as your time and compresses it by intensifying or itterating it catastrophicly or something of that nature. I need not to accept this on radiometric dating, the mechenism of burrial may explain why we see relatively smaller quantities of radio nuclei, though I would have to research radiometric dating to come to the conclusion.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-16-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Joe Meert, posted 03-16-2002 7:27 PM Joe Meert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by edge, posted 03-17-2002 11:53 PM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 25 by quicksink, posted 03-18-2002 4:31 AM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 39 by The Matt, posted 07-05-2007 7:21 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 65 (7073)
03-16-2002 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by edge
03-16-2002 8:07 PM


"In case you didn't notice, the Cuban trench does not exactly bound the entire Atlantic Ocean. Your earlier statement said that the oceanic crust pushing against the continents would result in rapid subduction as I remember. My point is that this is not always the case. So how does your model work for the Atlantic Ocean?"
--Yes I did notice that, that is why I gave location, and then I went to show the subduction properties of the pacific oceanic plate. I think there was a bit of missunderstandment there. The model for the atlantic would be as I said earlier:
quote:
what started this system off is an upwelling mantle by heat weakening the lithospheric plate and eventually rifting pangea.
--So this upwelling would result in the continents diverging at the spreading centers, as a process continued to have divergence take place, magma creates new oceanic basalt by preasure replacing the gap with basaltic ocean floor. Mantle Convection is what forces this action to continue in the atlantic rifts. If memmory serves, subduction should be taking place in the atlantic, though subduction zones are not present, possibly because of the slow spreading rate.
"It does? Just because you say so? Don't you think there are other mechanisms? I can think of three others without spraining a neuron. A lack of knowledge helps you overlook numerous facts in the geology of the earth and allow you to reconcile an ad hoc, flimsy concept of plate tectonics."
--I think I missinterpereted what it was that you were getting at when you asserted that 'you can push lithospheric plates from the spreading zones', I thought of it as if you did not think that the plates are not diverging.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by edge, posted 03-16-2002 8:07 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 24 of 65 (7187)
03-17-2002 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by TrueCreation
03-16-2002 10:27 PM


Let's go back to your schematic:
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
This is my time-scale:
-------------------
1--2--3--4--5--6--7
And this is your time-scale:
-------------------------------------
1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7
What evidence do you have to support your time scale? Are you saying that because "3" happened suddenly, that the "-----" also happened suddenly?
Also why do you think the "3" happened suddenly when there has been no evidence to support this assertions and the authors you reference have withdrawn that theory based on subsequent work.
Furthermore, if the "3" happened suddenly, what is the evidence that the "4" happened suddenly? Are you some kind of uniformitarianist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by TrueCreation, posted 03-16-2002 10:27 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 65 (7196)
03-18-2002 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by TrueCreation
03-16-2002 10:27 PM


C'mon TC- squashing up a timeline is not sufficient.
Science derives its timeline of Earth through a vast variety of corroborating methods of dating and gological analysis. You attempt to disprove these methods that bind you. when you "successfully achieve this quest", you are free to make whatever changes you like to the geological timeline.
Of course, this is not in the slightest sufficient. You cannot simply thros things out without evidence. You cannot tell me that the continents split in a year or so, without demonstrating that this is possible, or even probable. You haven't a single dating method that proves your timescale, not a single fossil that defies evolutionary explanation, and not a single shread of evidence to indicate that
a) civilizations were built only after the flood
b) polar flips, which would have without doubt caused an ecological disaster of unimaginable magnitude accurred rapidly a few thousand years ago
c) the continents could have separated with unimaginable speed.
etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.
My dare to you is to prove that the continents could have split at the suggested speed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by TrueCreation, posted 03-16-2002 10:27 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Joe Meert, posted 03-18-2002 7:30 AM quicksink has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 26 of 65 (7205)
03-18-2002 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by quicksink
03-18-2002 4:31 AM


quote:
b) polar flips, which would have without doubt caused an ecological disaster of unimaginable magnitude accurred rapidly a few thousand years ago
JM: Do you mean 'real' polar flips as in the earth tumbling in space or magnetic polarity changes. If the former was TC's claim then your argument is correct, if the latter, there is no indication that magnetic reversals cause any ecological disasters. On the other hand, what could be worse than a global flood brought on by a loving God in order to wipe out all the 'good' stuff he created?
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by quicksink, posted 03-18-2002 4:31 AM quicksink has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by quicksink, posted 03-18-2002 8:25 AM Joe Meert has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 27 of 65 (7212)
03-18-2002 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by edge
03-13-2002 10:03 AM


quote:
Originally posted by edge:
What I find even more interesting is how the rate of drift suddenly dropped to a more sedate cm/yr pace just before humans began to observe and navigate the oceans. Kind of the same way that the speed of light suddenly stopped decreasing in the 1960's when we began to be able to get accurate measurements. These were just lucky coincidences, I guess.

It's also like the Mormon prophet "coincidentally" getting a commandment from God that they should stop having multiple wives right before it was going to be declared illegal in Utah.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by edge, posted 03-13-2002 10:03 AM edge has not replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 65 (7213)
03-18-2002 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Joe Meert
03-18-2002 7:30 AM


Estimates and dating methods put the last "literal" polar flip at about 780,000 years ago, right? Many claim that the next is long overdue.
There is little doubt that these polar flips occurred, although we are yet to explain their nature. The creationists can either deny their existence, or use evidence to accomodate these phenomenas into the 10,000 year creationist model.
I'm asking a creationist to accuston the flip with their theories. It could get a little messy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Joe Meert, posted 03-18-2002 7:30 AM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Joe Meert, posted 03-18-2002 9:46 AM quicksink has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 29 of 65 (7217)
03-18-2002 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by quicksink
03-18-2002 8:25 AM


quote:
Originally posted by quicksink:
Estimates and dating methods put the last "literal" polar flip at about 780,000 years ago, right? Many claim that the next is long overdue.
There is little doubt that these polar flips occurred, although we are yet to explain their nature. The creationists can either deny their existence, or use evidence to accomodate these phenomenas into the 10,000 year creationist model.
I'm asking a creationist to accuston the flip with their theories. It could get a little messy.

JM: I would caution you in the use of terminology. Magnetic reversals is a better term than 'polar flip'. Polar 'flips' are the stuff of Hapgood theories and other pseudoscience.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by quicksink, posted 03-18-2002 8:25 AM quicksink has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by quicksink, posted 03-18-2002 10:05 AM Joe Meert has replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 65 (7218)
03-18-2002 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Joe Meert
03-18-2002 9:46 AM


so there were no events where the planet flipped around? I thought there was conclusive evidence, but I guess I was listening to heresy.
But how do creationists squash all these magnetic flips, or whatever you'd like to call them, into a tiny frame of time?
thanks for the clarification
ps- can you comment on my post in "Evolution in the Antarctic"?
thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Joe Meert, posted 03-18-2002 9:46 AM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Joe Meert, posted 03-18-2002 10:40 AM quicksink 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