Wegener and Evidence for Continental Drift

quote:

---

But this thread is about evidence. It originated with the Grand Canyon thread where at one point while defending your young canyon views you alluded to Wegener, and PaulK explained that while Wegener had no process, he at least had evidence.

---

--Yes it did indeed originate from that thread. However, notice the controvercial assertion from which all of this has come from, "Flood geology is not just lacking a mexhanism it is also lacking the evidence which continental drift had at the point Wegener proposed it." My italicized and bolded emphasis is the reason for my extreme disagreement. My point is that all of the evidences Wegener had to take into consideration at the point he initially proposed it is entirely consistent with current CPT theory. Seeing as this renders those evidences completely equivocal it is (as I have argued) quite pointless to be arguing by the the original intent of this thread. The only real difficulties with CPT geophysics are the problems of heat transfer and related. I address these problems in some of my in-development papers. I plan on making these difficulties well-known in the YECist community by getting them published in their journals.--So, what is to become of this thread?-------------------

quote:

---

The only real difficulties with CPT geophysics are the problems of heat transfer and related.

---

And the complete lack of any geological evidence.

You've pegged my dissembling meter.You are trying to rewrite the history of this discussion, so let me state what happened even more clearly. You compared your current lack of evidence to Wegener's lack of evidence. PaulK pointed out that Wegener didn't lack evidence, that he actually had plenty of evidence. What he lacked was a process by which continents could sail through rigid seafloor. PaulK went on to point out that you not only lack a process, but that unlike Wegener you even lack evidence. You said you would prove him wrong. All you have to do to do that is provide the evidence.So, where's the evidence?--Percy

What? So what is it, might you tell me, that I don't understand about the syntax of this segment of his assertion--"at the point Wegener proposed it". How am I misinterpreting his words? They speak quite plainly to me, what do you think was the intended topic of this thread and how is it supported by the assertion: "Flood geology is not just lacking a mexhanism it is also lacking the evidence which continental drift had at the point Wegener proposed it." Because this is the assertion that we are all arguing about.-------------------

quote:

---

And the complete lack of any geological evidence.

---

--Were going to have to agree to disagree until I find time to write a complete textbook on the subject.-------------------

Sorry, TC, I thought you were misunderstanding on purpose. If you want, reread my Message 33 again because it explains the actual point at issue.It seems that you're trying to figure out how you're misinterpreting PaulK when he says, "Flood geology is not just lacking a mexhanism it is also lacking the evidence which continental drift had at the point Wegener proposed it." Here is as clear a re-expression of that statement as I can devise: In other words, PaulK was definitely *not* saying that flood geology is inconsistent with the evidence available to Wegener. It is, but that's not what PaulK was saying. If you have any doubt just read Message 1 of this thread where PaulK says, "So are you going to prove that Wegener did not have significant evidence?" He asks this question because since flood geology has no evidence (at least none that you've presented so far), the only way you could be anywhere close to being right about having more evidence for flood geology than Wegener had for continental drift is if Wegener also had no evidence.I'm taking an equivalent but complementary approach. The other way that you could be right is if you had more evidence for flood geology than Wegener had for continental drift at the time that he proposed his ideas.So where's your evidence?--Percy

It should be of great concern to you that evidence for an ancient earth can be stated in simple sentences in short messages while your evidence requires an entire textbook. I'll bet not many books have been written where reviewers weren't able to succinctly summarize the key points in no more than a few pages, and usually much more briefly. If you can't briefly summarize your evidence here, how in the world are you going to summarize it in your textbook's introduction, or even create a table of contents?In other words, I again sense dissembling.--Percy

I've been away for the past week, which is why I missed the revival of this thread.
At this point it is best if I stick with confirming Percy's interpretation as accurate - as I explained back in post 22.

Having read a little about Catastrophic Plate Tectonics and the whole idea of flood geology on answersingenesis, I can only say that there's too much evidence against it, never mind any for it. Plate tectonics just doesn't occur over the timescale proposed by this theory - it requires a movement rate of miles per day, instead of what we see in modern times, i.e. inches per year (measured by satellite-mounted laser). Are we to assume that everything happened faster in those days?Flood geology does not account for the features of the crust we see today, where continental drift and the modern theory of plate tectonics does. There are also several features that contradict it completely - see this web page:
Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd editionI had the opportunity to read through an article written by Dr John Baumgardner, who first proposed CPT - and I couldn't help but note that he does not have even a degree in geology.The Rock Hound

I will add that there is one more thing that needs to be pointed out.The request was SPECIFICALLY for evidence for Flood Geology - evidence that is consistent with both ordinary and catastrophic plate tectonics is clearly not evidence for Flood Geology because it is not evidence for the elements which make CPT a Flood geology.So as this thread stands, TC's argument has the following problems1) It rests on a decidedly odd interpretation of the point in question - and TC has ignored corrections2) Even allowing for that interpretation it still does not meet the challenge for the reason explained above.3) Even then, as I have pointed out earlier, TC has not even got beyond a bare assertion that the evidence Wegener had did not favour conventional plate tectonics over the catatrophic version.All of these are serious problems and I see no reasonable hope that the second can be dealt with, even if the other two can be answered (itself far from certain).

quote:

---

In other words, PaulK was definitely *not* saying that flood geology is inconsistent with the evidence available to Wegener. It is, but that's not what PaulK was saying.

---

--Well the evidence available to Wegener at the time isn't contradictory to flood geology, and that was my only point. I am still a bit confused about how the more recent things PaulK has been saying (will explain later) supports my apparent misinterpretation of his initial words--but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and try to go by what we are now saying.

quote:

---

If you have any doubt just read Message 1 of this thread where PaulK says, "So are you going to prove that Wegener did not have significant evidence?"

---

--This would have been a misunderstanding then of what I was trying to say that I would love to prove him wrong on. I wasn't going to show that Wegener did not have significant evidence, but that the evidence he had available to him does not contradict current flood geodynamics.

quote:

---

He asks this question because since flood geology has no evidence (at least none that you've presented so far)

---

--Unequivocal evidence, yes, I think I'm a bit clueless. I am either not thinking right or I can't see any unequivocal evidence for uniformitarian geology either.

quote:

---

the only way you could be anywhere close to being right about having more evidence for flood geology than Wegener had for continental drift is if Wegener also had no evidence.

---

--I may have made an assertion like this in my early days on this board a year and a half ago, but I have never made such a claim that uniformitarian geology is in better condition at all. Infact, it is the opposite.

quote:

---

So where's your evidence?

---

--I can't think of any, unequivocal. Heck, I'm still trying to formulate a model that works without giving the earth a similar geologic history as Venus--a global resurfacing.--I would never misunderstand a post on purpose to further my own agenda or anything like that.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-27-2003]

"It should be of great concern to you that evidence for an ancient earth can be stated in simple sentences in short messages while your evidence requires an entire textbook."
--What I mean to say is in order to formulate a model that works and could be forwarded as an alternative to mainstream geology.------------------

quote:

---

What I meant is that the evidence FOR flood geology is weaker than that Wegener had.

---

--I don't think so because everything that Wegener had in his day is just fine with flood geology, to come up with just the littlest thing more isn't difficult either. But I thought you were looking for unequivocal evidences?

quote:

---

Flood geology goes back to George MacReady Price in 1902 - that's more than 100 years. More than the 19 Wegener had - it's ten years before Wegener published.

---

--This isn't a good comparison, it isn't "flood geology vs. plate tectonics" mainstream geology has been in serious development more than 200 years, while we have had a magnitude less than that. 25 years ago we were still playing with the vapor canopy and walt browns hydroplate. To argue CPT vs mainstream PT would be better. I can count how many people have been doing serious work on CPT on my fingers. Besides, Wegener wasn't the first to conjure continental drift.

quote:

---

And you claim that your CPT explains the same data - but does it ?

---

--The same data available to Wegener, yes.-------------------

quote:

---

Having read a little about Catastrophic Plate Tectonics and the whole idea of flood geology on answersingenesis, I can only say that there's too much evidence against it, never mind any for it. Plate tectonics just doesn't occur over the timescale proposed by this theory - it requires a movement rate of miles per day, instead of what we see in modern times, i.e. inches per year (measured by satellite-mounted laser). Are we to assume that everything happened faster in those days?

---

--Thats what happens with CPT

quote:

---

Flood geology does not account for the features of the crust we see today, where continental drift and the modern theory of plate tectonics does.

---

--It doesn't, what crustal feature doesn't it account for?

quote:

---

There are also several features that contradict it completely - see this web page:
Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition

---

--Could you maybe quote something in there and discuss it in that format? And no, sorry, I don't care about noah and the ark. I care about geophysics and the geodynamics of catastrophic plate tectonics.

quote:

---

I had the opportunity to read through an article written by Dr John Baumgardner, who first proposed CPT - and I couldn't help but note that he does not have even a degree in geology.

---

--Yeah, I guess geophysics doesn't count.-------------------

quote:

---

1) It rests on a decidedly odd interpretation of the point in question - and TC has ignored corrections

---

--Please don't accuse me of ignoring corrections. I have ignored nothing. I am sorry if I misunderstood what you had to say, but it wasn't diliberate.

quote:

---

3) Even then, as I have pointed out earlier, TC has not even got beyond a bare assertion that the evidence Wegener had did not favour conventional plate tectonics over the catatrophic version.

---

--No one ever said that it favours CPT over conventional tectonics, only that it is agreeable by either theory.-------------------