Wegener and Evidence for Continental Drift

"Please don't insult me TC. I'm a geologist and I do know what I'm talking about."
--I could possibly grant you my recognition of your credibility when you comment on mainstream geology. But from what I have read of your posts, you don't have much of an idea as to what the current paradigms of young earth geodynamics and the currently prevailing geological models thereof are.--Also, sorry if you took my comment as an insult--didn't mean it harshly. Afterall, if you stick around evcforum long enough, you'll see that I don't get the nicest comments either, sarcasm is frequent."Although the mechanism for magnatic reversals is still not quite understood, we know they do happen and the evidence for them recorded on the sea floor at spreading ridge margins agrees with PT. CPT, however, cannot explain them except by inferring that they happened several hundred times a day, because CPT happened over such a short period of time. As far as I am aware, this is impossible despite how little we know about their mechanism."
--I don't think it is difficult to explain in a CPT framework. While they didn't have to occur 'several times a day' as you say, it was often. Given that CPT requires that the current oceanic lithosphere all be originating during the flood event, the recoreded reversals in magnetic polarity must have also occured during that time. Also, given that the tectonic event also incorperates accelerated decay and there would therefore be a corresponding increase in temperature in various seismic localities, I would think that outer-core convection would not also be effected. The convection of the outer-core is the current explanation for the earths magnetism."I did consider the possibility. Any new geological theory is very interesting to me - and having examined Dr. Baumgardner's work, I have come to the conclusion that his basis for developing CPT is not scientific, and there is no solid evidence or foundation for CPT other than his belief in a literalist interpretation of the Bible."
--So, have you examined Baumgardners work or have you examined his motive for doing the work? This sounds more like the latter."I'm sorry to tell you this, but in this case the Bible has failed the test. "
--No, if it has failed, it is that interpretation of the Bible, not the Bible itself. Also, this is one of my problems I have with many of my opposing views such as yourself in this instance. You have little pacience, taking a look at the current condition of our young earth framework, finding it has flaws, and even highly detrimental flaws and conclude it false. I think this is fallicious and future advancement will show this to be true."There is nothing 'assumed' about the rates of geological processes."
--lol, you sure? I thought you were a geologist?"Modern day evidence gives us data to this effect. Why should the past rates be so radically different?"
--That isn't my question, my question is, why do the past rates have to be so radically uniform."Because CPT demands it, and the Bible supports it. Make no mistake about this - there are far more differences in the two theories other than the difference in rates"
--I havent made this mistake. Sure there are different processes, but it seems that 99% of it has to do with the rate of known processes(eg. cooling, subduction, orogenesis, lithification, etc)."I am quite sure that Dr. Baumgardner is aware of this - however, I stated that he did not consider the theory to be valid."
--Of course he does, I know this from personal conversation. He know it has well founded validity as far as being the prevailing geological theory for it being much more compatible with much more data."If he did, why should he develop CPT?"
--Because it is a potential alternative. Not only that but it is an alternative which if can be shown plausible will ultimately test the validity of the biblical story."And I say again - a Phd. in a particular area of geophysics is NOT the same as a degree in the very basics of geology."
--Then you have no idea what courses you have to take to become a geophysicist. Too bad Joseph Meert isn't here to slap you around for your thoughts on geophysicists. Is anyone else reading this?"This is also apparent in the interview, as he seems ignorant of the principles of palaeontology. However, this thread is not discussing the merits of Dr. Baumgardner's qualifications - it is discussing CPT, and I have yet to see any evidence that it is a sound scientific theory."
--Funny, I have yet to see anything which you have presented which isn't compatible with CPT.

"Believe me IR, TC does not have a clue that he is insulting anyone."
--I would think you would be the first person to evade this comment. Of all on this board you must be the one which pecks on my credentials with sarcasm the most. You think I don't take them as insults occasionally? But I don't really care most of the time because I would rather continue a productive discussion than derail a thread to a flame fest. I guess that when the creationist expresses his frustration in any minute form he is dismissed as a 'classic creationist ignoramous'."After all, he knows that all it takes is to read a few geological memoirs and one knows as much as the professionals in the field."
--If I did think that, I would be saying "I don't know" a hell of a lot less..."Quite true. At the rate of oceanic crust formation that TC needs, along with the number of magnetic reversals we know about, it would be virtually impossible to generate any magnetic reversal stripes on the ocean floor. Unless TC has some fantastic cooling rates for the oceanic crust, there would be so much noise from different parts of the crust cooling during different magnetic phases, I imagine that there should be no signal whatever. The thing that makes stripes discernible is that large parts of the oceanic crust cool through the curie point prior to each reversal. But hey, what do geologists know?!"
--The cooling rate indeed must be 'fantastic'. I explain this in my article on ocean floor bathymetry. Unfortunately the gas dynamics required to do research are way over my head so I'll let others interested in that do the research. We need such cooling rates in the first place to get the ocean floor bathymetry to current values anyways so this begs the question for the presence of geomagnetic reversals.------------------

Firstly, I am not the only one who has tried to get you to deal with the original question - Percy for instance has made a number of attempts to no avail.Second, I am sorry if you have not understood my explanations of why the fossil record should show a diference between CPT and conventional Plate Tectonics but at least I have tried. Where is your explanation of what CPT predicts for the fossil record - and how it follows from CPT ? Surely you must admit that it is not obvious that the fossil record shoudl be equally consistent with both.I do have a problem with you asking others to back up their assertions at this point in the discussion - because you have refused to back up yours too many times. Of course if you would rather retract your claims or admit that they are not defensible given your present state of knowledge that would be different - although it would raise the question of why you made the assertions in the first place.Since I see that you have founfd thew quote I am talkign about perhaps you would like to say what is "wrong" about it if it is not the idea that you claim that Wegerer's evidence did not support conventional Plate Tectonics over CPT - if you want to claim that you have offered a real argument instead of assertions then please refer to the actual post.And I note that despite your attempts to make comparisons CPT itself still lacks any real evidence to support it over conventional Plate Tectonics. Even on that basis it comes behind Continental Drift despite the fact that it has been around for years.

Misc Replies to relevant posts 110-129:Message 110: Roxrkool"I cannot fathom the thought that something of that magnitude (and it must be!) has gone completely unmentioned in the Bible or other historical writings."
--Why put it in the bible when no one but a couple of scientists at the end of time would care about? The rest of my family wouldn't have a care in the world about magnetic stripes on the sea-floor being produced during the flood, not to mention ancient civilizations. What color were Jesus' eyes? Who was Cain's wife? Doesn't matter, no one cares.Message 111: John"You have to think that those sea-faring folk would have noticed. The Chinese were using compasses, or compass precursors, 1800 years ago. Surely that is plenty of time for quite a few reversals."
--Not if they all occured during the catastrophe. See Coragyps post 112.Message 114: Minnemooseus"In the process of finding the above, I did see a comment (elsewhere) that no effect of magnetic refersals, has been found in the fossil record."
--Hey maybe this would be a good research initiative for potential falsification of the global flood event. The effects of magnetic reversals on biogeography. Too bad the data couldn't be verified for a couple thousand years.Message 116: IrishRockHound"This is perhaps not strictly true. Since no one knows what kind of effect a magnetic reversal would have, no one is sure about what evidence there is for one in the fossil record. We know they do happen, and since life doesn't appear to die out during a reversal (as in The Core - stupid movie) then its reasonable to assume that whatever effect it had was not very severe."
--It would have quite an effect on migratory species using magnetic north as their compass. Any effects like that observed in the fossil record?"Off the top of my head, I did a few calculations as to the number of reversals during CPT... for the sea bed to look the way it does now, and to have formed by CPT, a magnetic reversal would have to happen every 10 minutes."
--Wow! Mind if you lay out your calculation for us? How many reversals do you think there are observed on the ocean floor? I would calculate a magnetic reversal about once a day. Apparently you think that we observe 50,000 geomagnetic reversals in the sea floor!Message 117: John

quote:

---

Yes.

​

For example, in response to my question, "Why are we talking about 200m?" you reply:

​

quote:

---

--I dunno, go read some of percy's posts, he brought it up. Have you been following?

---

Yet when we look just one post back we find that that you stated:

​

TC post #56 writes:
Were talking about less than 200m from the ridge.

​

And you are using this as a defense of your position. So which is it? You don't know why we are talking about 200m from the ridge, in which case your post #56 is mostly crap. Or, you do know and the response you just gave is mostly crap.

---

--Again I reitterate, I didn't bring it up, Read Percy's post #46. I said "Were talking about less than 200m from the ridge" because thats what percy brought up and I was making sure you knew that.

quote:

---

Interesting. In post #56 you stated:

​

--The relevant sediments were talking about, yes.

​

This was in response to my statement, "First, you say that sea-floor sediments are due to runoff from the continents." So here again, something is very very wrong. Which sediments are at issue?

---

--This is another reason why this thread has been very confusing. From what I could see There were two arguments at hand that Percy was arguing. The sediments that I was talking about which originated from runoff of the continents were brought up because he was trying to say that all the sediments deposited during the flood should be of uniform depth (ie, 200+ meters from the ridge to the continents). But then he was also arguing that there should be a discontinuity in sedimentary depth between those sediments and the post-flood sediments closer to the ridge. The sediments closer to the ridge are the pelagic sediments I was talking about."Oh, so you never 'really' argued for 200m? "
--Not really, Percy brought it up in post #46. In subsequent more recent posts I have argued that it probably wouldn't be at 200m if there is a 'discontinuity' in sedimentary thickness."I've read your post #74. It is silly. It amounts to 'we can't know' which is a cop-out, TC."
--What, so you think that I'm a moron because it just so happens that we probably cannot know given the apparent chaos of thedata? Well, technically, there hasent been any data presented relevant to distinguishing a discontinuity at anywhere near percy's 200m value. I am the only person who posted data and it is on the depths of 5+km sediments and on a km scale. So come on John, you can stop saying that my assertions are 'silly'."Claimed that sedimentation 'is all due to runoff from the continents'? Yes, you did."
--Out of context. I didn't say 'sedimentation' was, I was referring to the bulk of the cause of gradual thickening of sediments nearing the continents."Yes, you did, TC. You claim that local pelagic sedimentation is immeasurable, yet sedimentary deposits are found very close to the ridges. This means that these sediments MUST HAVE COME from the continents. Or there is something wrong with yourscenario."
--Noooooo. As I stated waaaay back in post #54:

quote:

---

The problem is that these sediments do not travel such distances(nearing the mid-ocean ridge) on the time-scale we are talking about. The only relevant sediments which will be deposited on the sea-floor at anywhere near our designated 200m mark will be from local flaura and fauna

---

"I don't know? I don't know???? It is your damn argument!!!"
--Nope. Its Percy's."You don't have any data?"
--Nope, but apparently, percy does and isn't showing us. Also, as I will show, you don't either here:"Well, here ya go-- sediments on a ridge.
This portion of the Juan de Fuca Ridge is an example of a sedimented ridge-crest system (Figure 12). Such sites are of significant economic interest because sediments are particularly effective at trapping metals dissolved in hydrothermal fluids and are often the sites of large sulfide deposits. At Middle Valley, the sediments host a significant active sulfide accumulation and are underlain by a vigorous hydrothermal system.http://www.ocean.washington.edu/...white_paper/scidriv5.html"
--Nope, this doesn't work, this is authigenic sedimentation which is highly localized at the hydrothermal system and can vary. Again, you need data for pelagic sedimentation."And here...Sediments cover all but the active portions of the mid-ocean ridges like dust that covers the infrequently-used objects in your home. The sediments fall from above, like old animal skeletons (biogenous sediments). Also, considerable dust from the continents blows over the oceans and is deposited (terrigenous sediments). Finally, hydrogenous sediments are those forming insitu (in place). They crystallize directly from the liquid when concentrations become sufficiently rich.http://www.sci.ccny.cuny.edu/~hindman/eas100/Chapter14.htmYour lack of data is self imposed, TC. And that is your biggest problem. So, wanna try again?"
--Your making it sound like I am at fault here. You have pointed out no problem of mind here. But I will point out yours, again. You need data for pelagic sediments at less than 200m from the ridge just as I have given long ago(though data was only for 5+km).Message 119: Roxrkool"Perhaps IRH is correct. Maybe the effects are relatively mild and something along the lines of beached whales/dolphins and birds flying the wrong directions (ending up on strange continents and islands), etc. ???"
--Right. A good question would be whether we find anything like this in the fossil record?Message 126: IrishRockHound"I wonder if Dr. Baumgardner thought about this - ah, but he doesn't have a geology degree, and might never have even heard of magnetic reversals. What a shame."
--Where is Joe Meert when you need him? Your sarcasm doesn't make you look any smarter than your questions. I guess Baumgardner wouldn't know about it because he would probably stop to use a calculator.Message 128: Edge"My guess is that he will say that that is how fast they occurred, despite all the time constraints, and were recorded on an oceanic crust traveling at, oh what?, about 60 mph(probably faster if the 10 minute figure is correct)? Ridiculous really."
--Whats ridiculous is that you would even stop to think about considering his "10 minute" value. Not only that, but where did you get your 60 mph value? Oh I see, no where."But this has never deterred TC in any way. He just needs more time!!!"
--I think that people forget that I am 16 sometimes. No $*%& I need more time.Message 129: John"I've watched TC go from sincere and fairly rational, but utterly wrong, to what you see here-- a really good creationist, complete with all the misdirection, self-imposed ignorance, and denial. I find it very sad actually. "
--Hm.. I guess I was dilluding myself to think that my fellow evo's would actually be glad to finally hear a young earth creationist recognize the fact that we do not yet have a tenable alternative to mainstream geodynamics. I make a mistake and get slapped in the face. A fellow evo makes a mistake and is either ignored without second thought or critique or is 'lovingly corrected'. I find it very sad actually.

"Well, he's not going to be back until the 19th. I'm sure that once he returns.... oh, wait a minute... Is it really the 22nd already? Gee..."
--Sorry, I came home to those wonderful computer problems again. I'm still trying to get my comp an internet connection so until then, I will be working on another (more combersome) laptop. I might be slow with responses for a little while.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-23-2003]

Errm, TC? Have you heard of sarcasm?

"Errm, TC? Have you heard of sarcasm? "
--Yeah, but what you did say in the first sentence of your post is what we postulate, I assumed that you knew this--after all, it is easily deduced.------------------

"Errm, TC? Have you heard of sarcasm? "
--Yeah, but what you did say in the first sentence of your post is what we postulate, I assumed that you knew this--after all, it is easily deduced given what we theorize about the current oceanic lithosphere.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-23-2003]

quote:

---

Well I've been on this board long enough to know that as long as I remain an advocate of the Young Earth, there will always be something to pick on TC about!

---

There is a reason for that, TC. That reason? You've yet to produce anything cogent supporting your position.

quote:

---

--No, I never made an assertion and then denied it subsequently. I'm sure if you read my posts in context, this will be revealed.

---

Tc, buddy, I've been tracking just this sort of behavior. Why deny when the truth is there for all to see?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

"There is a reason for that, TC. That reason? You've yet to produce anything cogent supporting your position."
--Yeah, I guess refuting hundreds of arguments against the event doesn't mean anything.--There is something being discussed right now--at least attemptedly. What do you think about the global resurfacing of Venus?"Tc, buddy, I've been tracking just this sort of behavior. Why deny when the truth is there for all to see?"
--John, I simply havent done this. The examples which have been presented to me in support of this have merely been read out of context. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but thats just how it went.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-23-2003]

quote:

---

"It doesn't. In fact, the term 'authigenic sedimentation' doesn't make much sense, either."

​

--No, I'm sure it does. Just do a search on google.

---

Ah, I see what you are saying. I was thinking more of authigenic minerals with which I am more familiar. In my particular specialization, we generally discuss authigenic minerals as having formed in-place, largely after sedimentation. However, my point is that authigenic sedimentation is hardly local since one of the sites for authigenic sediments mentioned in your referenced sites is 'the Pacific plate'. When one considers that all of the oceanic crust originated in areas far from terrigenous sources, you have hardly narrowed the field where authigenic sediments can be deposited. Furthermore, one would have to include, therefor, all chemical sediments and precipitates which are found in numerous environments from continental evaporites to deep sea cherts, banded iron formations and lacustrine chert beds.As I remember you exact words were:"--Why not? They're both localized sedimentation."[This message has been edited by edge, 06-24-2003]

quote:

---

--Again I reitterate, I didn't bring it up, Read Percy's post #46. I said "Were talking about less than 200m from the ridge" because thats what percy brought up and I was making sure you knew that.

---

Again, you evade. You were making arguments and when asked about something YOU USED in your argument, you reply "I dunno." Lol....

quote:

---

--This is another reason why this thread has been very confusing. From what I could see There were two arguments at hand that Percy was arguing.

---

This is crap, TC. You made two contradictory claims in the same paragraph. Do I have to post it again?

quote:

---

--What, so you think that I'm a moron because it just so happens that we probably cannot know given the apparent chaos of the data?

---

More like, "... because the data isn't chaotic until you run it through your imagination, inventing countless undemonstrated hypothesis to try to overturn the bloody obvious."

quote:

---

Well, technically, there hasent been any data presented relevant to distinguishing a discontinuity at anywhere near percy's 200m value.

---

Right. There isn't one. Look at a sea floor map. There is no discontinuity anywhere that supports the idea that the sea floor spread at a phenomenal rate 6000 years ago. So you have invoked numerous undemonstrated-- to be kind-- ideas in order to claim that the data doesn't exist, and WOULDN'T exist. So basically, you are left with no evidence to seperate CPT from PT. Now, the catch is that CPT assumes numerous add ideas-- like accelerated decay-- for which there is no evidence. PT works with only things for which we have evidence. We should reject PT, which handles the data quite well with no arcane processes, in favor of CPT which must assume a whole chain of mystery forces to even close the realm of bad-acid-trip?

quote:

---

--Noooooo. As I stated waaaay back in post #54:

​

quote:The problem is that these sediments do not travel such distances(nearing the mid-ocean ridge) on the time-scale we are talking about. The only relevant sediments which will be deposited on the sea-floor at anywhere near our designated 200m mark will be from local flaura and fauna

---

This is exactly the problem. The sediment DOES travel these distances. Furthermore, by your own words it MUST travel these distances since the pelagic sedimentation is immeasurable. Simple. There is sediment. pelagic sedimentation is immeasurable-- your words. Thus the sediments come from the continents.

quote:

---

"I don't know? I don't know???? It is your damn argument!!!"
--Nope. Its Percy's.

---

Did Percy write the following in response to my statement, "However, there is sediment very near the ridges, so if all the sediment is from the continents it must have travelled these distances."?

quote:

---

--Nope, this doesn't work, this is authigenic sedimentation which is highly localized at the hydrothermal system and can vary. Again, you need data for pelagic sedimentation.

---

No I don't. Why the hell would I need data for pelagic sedimentation? You have already pronounced that pelagic sedimentation is immeasurable. I just have to show sedimentation, and then invoke your statement that the sediments never reached the ridges. By the way, did you notice this line? Notice that turbidite sediments blanket the ridge?

quote:

---

I guess I was dilluding myself to think that my fellow evo's would actually be glad to finally hear a young earth creationist recognize the fact that we do not yet have a tenable alternative to mainstream geodynamics. I make a mistake and get slapped in the face.A fellow evo makes a mistake and is either ignored without second thought or critique or is 'lovingly corrected'.

---

You have been making the same claims since I started posting here, and your arguments are getting worse and worse. The denial, the self-contradictions, the jargonish doubletalk is reaching epic proportions. It isn't that you haven't been lovingly corrected. It is that you WON'T be corrected. You refuse to be corrected.Like you say, you have no tenable alternative. Yet you continue to argue. You've got nothing but wishes. You know you've got nothing. But you still argue. Geez!!! How much respect do you expect us to have for you?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

"Believe me IR, TC does not have a clue that he is insulting anyone."

​

--I would think you would be the first person to evade this comment. Of all on this board you must be the one which pecks on my credentials with sarcasm the most.

---

Yes and there is a reason for that. Also, you can mock me all you want. I just take offense that you disregard all of the blood, sweat and years of back breaking work in the field by generations of geologists who actually did the work... How you can sit there and simply disregard them, and cleave to Baumgardner's wacky computer model is beyond my comprehension.

quote:

---

You think I don't take them as insults occasionally? But I don't really care most of the time because I would rather continue a productive discussion than derail a thread to a flame fest. I guess that when the creationist expresses his frustration in any minute form he is dismissed as a 'classic creationist ignoramous'.

---

Then prove us wrong. Give us just one iota of evidence in your favor.

quote:

---

"Quite true. At the rate of oceanic crust formation that TC needs, along with the number of magnetic reversals we know about, it would be virtually impossible to generate any magnetic reversal stripes on the ocean floor. Unless TC has some fantastic cooling rates for the oceanic crust, there would be so much noise from different parts of the crust cooling during different magnetic phases, I imagine that there should be no signal whatever. The thing that makes stripes discernible is that large parts of the oceanic crust cool through the curie point prior to each reversal. But hey, what do geologists know?!"

​

--The cooling rate indeed must be 'fantastic'.

---

Good! Then you have evidence! Let's see it!

quote:

---

I explain this in my article on ocean floor bathymetry. Unfortunately the gas dynamics required to do research are way over my head so I'll let others interested in that do the research. We need such cooling rates in the first place to get the ocean floor bathymetry to current values anyways so this begs the question for the presence of geomagnetic reversals.

---

Oh... So we still have to wait? In the meantime, you are convinced that this mystery mechanism is preferable to known mechanisms and observed events. Incredible!

quote:

---

Message 128: Edge

​

"My guess is that he will say that that is how fast they occurred, despite all the time constraints, and were recorded on an oceanic crust traveling at, oh what?, about 60 mph(probably faster if the 10 minute figure is correct)? Ridiculous really."

​

--Whats ridiculous is that you would even stop to think about considering his "10 minute" value. Not only that, but where did you get your 60 mph value? Oh I see, no where.

---

Well, actually, I believe that 40 MPH has been calculated somewhere else, but that is unimportant. The point is that the rate is completely unrealistic. You cannot create this much oceanic crust in a short period of time without it being painfully obvious that such a thing has happened. Evidence should be shouting from the rocks, but it isn't. All you have is some fantastic computer model created by a religious fanatic. That's it: zero!And I am not particularly fond of the 10-minute reversal figure, either. Once again, the actual amount is irrelevant. The rate must be extremely high, even thought there is NO evidence for it. The types of heat flows you are talking about should have sterilized the planet... completely.

quote:

---

"There is a reason for that, TC. That reason? You've yet to produce anything cogent supporting your position."

​

--Yeah, I guess refuting hundreds of arguments against the event doesn't mean anything.

---

Hmm, I missed those. Could you repeat just one of them here, just to remind me? But really, the point is that you have not produced a single piece of evidence to support your contention. Do we have to go over the 'Last Thursdayism' argument again?