Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,332 Year: 3,589/9,624 Month: 460/974 Week: 73/276 Day: 1/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   continental drift
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5698 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 31 of 65 (7219)
03-18-2002 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by quicksink
03-18-2002 10:05 AM


quote:
Originally posted by quicksink:
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

JM: No, there is currently no evidence to support the notion of a complete 'flip' of the poles (i.e. N-geographic becomes S-geographic or vice-versa). One person has championed the cause for a 90-degree rotation of the mantle and outer crust, but the evidence now weighs in heavily against that notion. Creationists deal with magentic reversals the same way they deal with other science. They make things up and hope no-one notices the details. Look under magnetite and see what one creationist did.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by quicksink, posted 03-18-2002 10:05 AM quicksink has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Joe Meert, posted 03-18-2002 1:28 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5698 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


(1)
Message 32 of 65 (7232)
03-18-2002 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Joe Meert
03-18-2002 10:40 AM


More thoughts on continental drift....
Several creationists have proposed that prior to the days of Peleg the earth consisted of one single landmass and a large sea. Others, say that this was the situation pre-flood and that all the drift took place during the flood. The objections to this notion are numerous and have been discussed here and elsewhere. What I have not yet seen addressed by the creationists is the paleogeography of this landmass. What did it look like? What evidence was used to reconstruct the pre-flood (or pre-Peleg) supercontinent? Anyone care to show me where this has been addressed. I'm assuming that creationists won't use the Pangea configuration for obvious reasons, so what is their thinking?
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Joe Meert, posted 03-18-2002 10:40 AM Joe Meert has not replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 65 (7276)
03-18-2002 11:08 PM


push

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by PeterMc, posted 07-04-2007 9:56 PM quicksink has not replied
 Message 35 by PeterMc, posted 07-04-2007 9:57 PM quicksink has not replied

  
PeterMc
Junior Member (Idle past 6109 days)
Posts: 25
From: New Zealand
Joined: 06-21-2007


Message 34 of 65 (408783)
07-04-2007 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by quicksink
03-18-2002 11:08 PM


Hi. I have not yet posted on this forum and I haven't found a point at which to jump in as the threads are either so well into the details or else I don't have anything new to add. So, I may as well start somewhere. I don't want to divert from the main topic too much but concerning continental drift etc., I have tried without success on another thread to get a picture of what the creationist view-point on animal migration and the flood "upheaval" is. How and at what point did that occur? If the landmasses were already broken up, how did the animals "hop on board"? I used as an example New Zealand where, due to it's isolation, totally unique species have arisen. YEC needs a lot of evolution in a short time but first the animals have to be able to migrate there. I will understand if this implication of plate techtonics anf the flood should not be discussed here but in any case I hope you don't mind me hopping in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by quicksink, posted 03-18-2002 11:08 PM quicksink has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by jar, posted 07-04-2007 10:16 PM PeterMc has replied

  
PeterMc
Junior Member (Idle past 6109 days)
Posts: 25
From: New Zealand
Joined: 06-21-2007


Message 35 of 65 (408784)
07-04-2007 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by quicksink
03-18-2002 11:08 PM


Sent twice - please delete.
Edited by PeterMc, : Dobled up - cant find delete button.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by quicksink, posted 03-18-2002 11:08 PM quicksink has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 36 of 65 (408787)
07-04-2007 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by PeterMc
07-04-2007 9:56 PM


Welcome
Welcome to EvC. Biogeography is a question that comes up here regularly. Some open threads on it are:
Message 1
Message 1

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by PeterMc, posted 07-04-2007 9:56 PM PeterMc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by PeterMc, posted 07-05-2007 4:03 AM jar has not replied
 Message 38 by PeterMc, posted 07-05-2007 4:05 AM jar has not replied

  
PeterMc
Junior Member (Idle past 6109 days)
Posts: 25
From: New Zealand
Joined: 06-21-2007


Message 37 of 65 (408820)
07-05-2007 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by jar
07-04-2007 10:16 PM


Re: Welcome
Thanks for the welcome. I will peruse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by jar, posted 07-04-2007 10:16 PM jar has not replied

  
PeterMc
Junior Member (Idle past 6109 days)
Posts: 25
From: New Zealand
Joined: 06-21-2007


Message 38 of 65 (408822)
07-05-2007 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by jar
07-04-2007 10:16 PM


Re: Welcome
Oh, and in my message 34 I meant "tried without success on another FORUM - not thread".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by jar, posted 07-04-2007 10:16 PM jar has not replied

  
The Matt
Member (Idle past 5560 days)
Posts: 99
From: U.K.
Joined: 06-07-2007


Message 39 of 65 (408830)
07-05-2007 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by TrueCreation
03-16-2002 10:27 PM


Hi TrueCreation.
Am I right in thinking that you agree that large scale igneous activity preceeded the opening of the Atlantic, but think it happened on a much shorter timescale than conventional geology says?
If so, how do you explain the presence of palaeosols between many of the lava flows? Soil development takes time, and this suggests rather slow accumulation of lava.
Edited by The Matt, : No reason given.

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

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2867 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 40 of 65 (500353)
02-25-2009 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by quicksink
03-14-2002 4:04 AM


antartic mnt ranges affect plate techtonics?
Does this occasion any revamping of current theories?
"It all adds to the mystery - from the tectonic perspective of how these mountains were created; and from the glacial history perspective of how the East Antarctic ice sheet was formed and didn't erode these peaks."
ref:
BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | 'Ghost peaks' mapped under ice
Why the wait if these mountains were discovered in the 1950s? Why are we just now taking more accurate measurements?
I think creationism's fate is literally sealed below the permafrost of the Antarctic, however. If we could only get to the fossils, we could determine whether there were indeed any modern animals living on the continent. If there weren't, then we could assume that all life ceased to exist on the continent after it drifted too far south to support organisms.
I have wondered about this before. Why can't we dig a hole down through the ice to the continent below and explore the fossil finds?
I'm an EE not a CE or ME, go easy with the ridicule..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by quicksink, posted 03-14-2002 4:04 AM quicksink has not replied

  
Architect-426
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 41 of 65 (511562)
06-10-2009 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by quicksink
03-13-2002 3:59 AM


Problems with Catastrophic Plate Tectonics
quote:
Most sane creationists claim that the continents split during the Great Flood.
so may I ask this:
can you demonstrate that it would be possible for the Atlantic to spread at a rate of 1/2 mile per hour?
In this case I agree with the evolutionists regarding rapid plate tectonics as being a farce. I want to make it clear that this list of problems with Catastrophic Plate Tectonics is not meant to be construed as being disrespectful toward Creation scientists or scientists at large. Rather, my intentions are to simply point out the major problems with the theory, as well as to stress that scientists need to strictly adhere to known scientific evidence with regards to geological features and their architecture as well as the known mechanisms behind their formations. This must come first before implementing a global Flood theory.
Problems with Catastrophic Plate Tectonics:
1. A Flood mechanism MUST be supported by Scripture. The Scriptures do not support continental drift, moreover rapid continental drift as a Flood mechanism. There are also several other aspects of Scripture the theory completely ignores including the subterranean hydro-system that was in place prior to the Flood. Also, the existence of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers as being in known geographical locations does not support a continental drift model (yes, their courses most likely changed due to the Flood).
2. Plate Tectonics in its irrelevant mm/yr creeping evolutionary form does not work and is plagued with inherent problems that scientists cannot resolve with the theory. Therefore if plate tectonics does not work in its evolutionary form, how can it be ‘adopted’ as a Flood mechanism? It simply can’t.
3. ‘Speeding up’ plate tectonic ‘motion’ is even a worse scenario. Sea floor spreading and subduction are scientific myths along with continental drift to begin with. Creation scientists are entirely off track for even attempting to adopt the theory as a Flood model. By doing such, ALL aquatic life was destroyed due to the tremendous heat given off with a ‘rapid’ scenario as the oceans would have boiled. Obviously aquatic life survived the event, while of course much of it was destroyed as is evident with the plethora of marine fossils. Moreover, when magma hits water, it is quickly quenched and in many cases explodes into sand, therefore concluding that a ‘sea floor spreading’ mechanism via massive upwelling of magma is scientifically improbable and far-fetched.
4. Catastrophic Plate Tectonics will have a very, very difficult time explaining terrestrial formations that are not attributed to ‘plate tectonic movement’ (in which the observed movement is nil, so none are the result of ‘plate’ tectonics). Examples include large igneous masses/provinces, super volcanic eruptions, canyon formations, mountain chains, etc. A true Flood model must address ALL formations as the face of the earth was completely altered. The theory is simply for the sake of theory thus beginning with a theoretical thought process rather than beginning with true evidence and thorough examination of HOW terrestrial (and submarine) features are truly formed.
5. Catastrophic Plate Tectonics will also have a very, very difficult time explaining the formations of seas such as the Med., Sea of Japan, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea, etc. Again, scientists need to address geomorphology as primary for a Flood mechanism rather than secondary.
6. Scaling laws are ignored. In other words continental drift is impossible due to the fact that at a global scale a continent is merely a congealed pile of sand or better yet dust. Massive movement on a global scale would result in ALL land crumbling and we would end up with one giant ocean after this event. In effect, we would have liquefaction on a mega scale.
7. Catastrophic Plate Tectonics is another example of how earth scientists, as well as science at large are simply ‘hooked’ and even addicted to the plate tectonic theory and are unable to come up with a true scientific methodology of ‘what truly happened’ due to this mental block. The theory has been so engrained into science that it has unfortunately hampered forward thinking.
8. Catastrophic plate tectonics (as well as evolutionary plate tectonics) ignores the fact that there are huge masses of submerged continental rocks in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Moreover all of the volcanic islands and atolls in all oceans. The PT theory, in any form, assumes total subdution of oceanic lithosphere. This is preposterous and given the existence of these formations, ‘subduction’ is impossible. The FACT is that these oceans are geological wrecks. Again, careful scrutiny of oceanic bathymetry must take place.
9. Catastrophic plate tectonics ignores fault formations that are currently observed. Horizontal movement of the ocean lithosphere, especially rapid, simply does not correlate with known fault formations. Moreover, when there IS fault movement, land collapses, i.e. a de-tectonic event.
10. We know very little about mantle dynamics. Seismic waves do not give us a complete picture of what is taking place in the mantle and it is very complex. Therefore any ‘model’ that is based on mantle dynamics is very speculative and will inherently be swayed to support the theory. This is not true science at all and is another example of how ‘run away theories’ get the best of scientists and will eventually end up in a scientific ‘thought’ disaster.
11. Catastrophic Plate Tectonics ignores THE most powerful force of nature: phreatomagmatic explosions as well as the results. This goes back to my point #1. (Note: I use the word ‘nature’ for the sake of clarity in literature. ALL ‘nature’ was created by God and obeys God).
12. Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (as well as evolutionary plate tectonics), is a giant misnomer. The literal translation is demolition flat builder. Think about it. The Flood was a global destructive event, yet the word tectonic is used, or rather misused. Nothing was ‘built’. Rather, land was destroyed in mass. The word ‘plate’ is also misused in earth science but unfortunately has been adopted and engrained in scientific literature/works (sections of the earth are truly convex, not flat as the word plate alludes). Also see point #6 as a continent cannot move as a ‘plate’. The word catastrophic is 100% correct as a description of as Flood mechanism.
Catastrophic Plate Tectonics as well as evolutionary plate tectonics both need to be scrapped in their entirety. Earth scientists, no matter what their stance is on Creation or Evolution, are not doing anyone a respectable/responsible service by holding onto the PT theory. True science must be observable, testable and repeatable. I have already elaborated on this in some of my other posts and again will stress the need for scientists to carefully examine any theory with MUCH scrutiny prior to releasing it to the general public, or at least be very clear on the fact that these are hypothesis, and are not to be construed as scientific facts (i.e. science needs to implement disclaimers, this should become LAW). Otherwise, simply stick to the facts. Anything else is wholly unprofessional and a disservice to everyone, including science.
SCRIPTURE supports mass rising of land and mass destruction of land - vertically.
SCIENCE supports mass rising of land and mass destruction of land - vertically.
SCRIPTURE supports rapid or ‘event’ formation of geological features.
SCIENCE supports rapid or ‘event’ formation of geological features.
Once scientists closely examine geological features in the light of the Scriptures and known scientific mechanisms, the evidence for the Flood/destruction of the face of the Earth, is absolutely profound and cannot be denied. Of course, those who do not believe in God, His Word and reject the Lord Jesus Christ as God’s ONE and ONLY Son given as a ransom on our behalf, for ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, will also inevitably reject any and all blatant scientific and historical evidence of the Great Flood of Noah. And this is an unnecessary tragedy to take to one’s death.
Thanks
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : More blank lines.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Missed one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by quicksink, posted 03-13-2002 3:59 AM quicksink has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Coyote, posted 06-10-2009 2:51 PM Architect-426 has not replied
 Message 43 by Theodoric, posted 06-10-2009 4:01 PM Architect-426 has not replied
 Message 44 by roxrkool, posted 06-10-2009 6:28 PM Architect-426 has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2124 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 42 of 65 (511596)
06-10-2009 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Architect-426
06-10-2009 12:50 PM


Re: Problems with Catastrophic Plate Tectonics
Once scientists closely examine geological features in the light of the Scriptures and known scientific mechanisms, the evidence for the Flood/destruction of the face of the Earth, is absolutely profound and cannot be denied. Of course, those who do not believe in God, His Word and reject the Lord Jesus Christ as God’s ONE and ONLY Son given as a ransom on our behalf, for ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, will also inevitably reject any and all blatant scientific and historical evidence of the Great Flood of Noah. And this is an unnecessary tragedy to take to one’s death.
Geologists examine geological features with regard to the evidence, not some ancient scripture (of which there are many).
Archaeologists examine soils and human cultures. And they too have failed to find evidence of this purported flood. (I've been digging for nearly 40 years and no global flood has ever been suggested by the evidence I've found. But then I let the evidence speak for itself, and I don't try to impose some ancient myth upon it.)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Architect-426, posted 06-10-2009 12:50 PM Architect-426 has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9130
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 43 of 65 (511607)
06-10-2009 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Architect-426
06-10-2009 12:50 PM


Re: Problems with Catastrophic Plate Tectonics
Once scientists closely examine geological features in the light of the Scriptures and known scientific mechanisms, the evidence for the Flood/destruction of the face of the Earth, is absolutely profound and cannot be denied.
Quit preaching and provide the evidence.
Oh you don't have any evidence? We should accept it on faith?
Next.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Architect-426, posted 06-10-2009 12:50 PM Architect-426 has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1007 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 44 of 65 (511636)
06-10-2009 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Architect-426
06-10-2009 12:50 PM


Re: Problems with Catastrophic Plate Tectonics
Once scientists closely examine geological features in the light of the Scriptures and known scientific mechanisms, the evidence for the Flood/destruction of the face of the Earth, is absolutely profound and cannot be denied.
You don't even realize how amazingly stupid that statement is, do you?
What you are asking is for scientists to throw away reason, critical thinking, the scientific method, our objectivity, etc. You'd have us out in the field collecting only those data that support your silly Creationist ideas, pandering to your over-inflated egos, and ignoring anything that contradicts your pet theories.
That is most assuredly NOT science.
Science doesn't care what you want to believe or what you want to prove.
Which is why you Creationists are always attempting to re-define it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Architect-426, posted 06-10-2009 12:50 PM Architect-426 has not replied

  
menes777
Member (Idle past 4337 days)
Posts: 36
From: Wichita, KS, USA
Joined: 01-25-2010


Message 45 of 65 (544451)
01-26-2010 2:45 PM


For TC
In the rocks of the Atlantic Ocean there are magnetic lines of reference that align themselves with the magnetic conditions under which they were formed. The reference lines form when the rock is still molten and those lines align themselves with the current magnetic conditions of the Earth's core. When the rocks cool and harden that particular orientation is recorded in stone (literally) and forms stripes recording that particular era of time. As time passes and the magnetic poles shift and the ocean crust grows stripes form that can be visibly measured and mapped. In fact it does this all over the ocean floor, but just look at it in reference to the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.
Are you telling me that not only was the mechanism for spreading the Atlantic much faster in the past (for a very short period of time), but that the earth's magnetic poles went through a spastic flipping phase only to come to an almost complete dead stop when it become convenient?

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024