Catastrophic Plate Tectonics - Fact or Fiction?

TC asks:"What other mechanism is there to produce the isotopic signatures observed that give the impression of increasing age throughout the geologic record?"Decay at normal rates with actual increasing age?This message has been edited by deerbreh, 07-05-2005 04:36 PM

Paulk; I also asked if problematic 10-mile/day plates ever clashed wthin your PT scheme.As far as dogmatic parsimony is concerned, however, I myself view the ever-evolving PT scheme with increasing suspicion. Again I’m not a geologist, but many questions hit me (you don’t have to answer these, Paulk)1) Are there now over a hundred tectonic plates to keep track of, going different directions? 2) Which of those hundred plates consistently travel an inch per year, and how do their current force vectors really suggest Pangaea fits into your uniformatarianistic view?3) Can you or anyone accurately draw a Pangaea for us that might be validated? (Funky Pangaea text-drawings come to mind).4) How many 10-mile/day plate movement (catastrophes) might you allow in your PT scheme over the millennia, Paulk? 10, 20, 100, 1000?5) Do grand canyons and rocky mountain phenomena really fit into YOUR PT theory(ies) (with process, parsimony, and prediction)?6) Did not immense catastrophe(s) cause tall mountain ranges?The questions go on and on, Paulk.In sum, PT theory seems to me to be evolving to suggest greater and greater catastrophes these days, i.e., to be REALLY parsimonious.

A hundred? Who told you this? Actually, I'm not sure why this would be a problem anyway. There are 6 or 7 major plates and just looking at the geometry of them, it should become obvious that numerous more microplates would be expected. The maximum rates are on the order of 10 cm/y. Some continental plates are very much less, I'm guessing less than 1 cm/y. Why is this a problem? Are all cars on the streets going the same speed? In some cases yes. In some cases the vectors appear to have changed. Again, why is this a problem? Are you some kind of ultra-uniformitarion? It's been done hundreds of times and basically, they look very similar. Details might be different, but we can't know everything about a continental mass. None. There is simply no evidence for it, and no need for it. Absolutely. Do you really think that the theorists have not thought about this? No. Perhaps many small catastrophes, but no 'immense' ones. If you call these questions, I assure you that they have been answered many times over. However, I fail to see any significance to most of them. Not 'greater catastrophes' just more of the garden variety of them. And they all occur within the normal process parameters of geological forces. I hate to break the news to you, but that is how it is with any scientific study. The more you know, the more detail you get. The more detail, the more complexity. These are not 'greater catastrophes', but greater complexities. If this means to you that it is less 'parsimonious', then I suggest you never study particle physics; because the universe is becoming less and less parsimonious every day. Have you looked under the hood of your car? I'll bet it's less parsimonious than your previous vehicle. Does that mean that automobiles don't work?

hehNothing new, I suppose.

Hi Philip,Your questions sort of run orthogonal to the topic of this thread. Edge has already posted a reply, and if after reading his answer and mine you still have questions it might be best to open a new thread. This comment is actually on topic. What changes in mainstream geology's views of plate tectonics are you thinking of? The only significant changes I'm aware of are in CPT views, because when Tranquility Base was here a few years ago he argued that all plate motions happened in a year, and now he's arguing they happened in several hundred years. CPT accepts the same number of plates as mainstream PT. Why do you have a problem with the number of plates?Anyway, there are not a hundred major tectonic plates, only about 14. You're probably thinking of subplates. For example, all of North America and half the North Atlantic reside on the North American plate, but this plate, like all others, contains subplates. Subplates are *not* miniature plates. Subplates are not produced at oceanic ridges, and they aren't consumed at subduction zones, unless they happen to be on the ridge or subduction zone edge of the main plate. Subplate boundaries usually correspond to fault lines and increased amounts of seismic activity. There isn't much information on the web about subplates, but here's a link to a technical abstract for a paper about subplates in the western United States: Contemporary Tectonics and Seismicity of the Western United States with Emphasis on the Intermountain Seismic BeltThe existence of tectonic plates and subplates is not considered controversial by Creationists because they exist in the here and now and they can be detected and measured today. This question is one reason why I think this message belongs in a new topic. CPT completely accepts the existence of Pangaea, and neither TC nor TB doubt the existence of Pangaea. CPT proposes that the modern continents formed through the breakup of Pangaea and the subsequent motion of continents to their current locations. In other words, CPT and mainstream PT do not disagree about the existence of Pangaea or the subsequent motion of the continents. You're raising of this question here makes no sense.That being said, it is still an excellent question, and it deserves an answer.Mainstream geology is not certain what forces drive the motion of the continents, though the most widely accepted view is that it is primarily mantle currents. But the velocity (i.e., direction and speed) of tectonic plates and their rotatations (yes, tectonic plates can also rotate) cannot be assumed to be a constant. The existence of the ancient Pangaean continent cannot be reliably derived by projecting the plate motions backward in time.The positions and orientations of the continents through time is derived by combining radiometric dates with geomagnetic data. Even if you don't accept Radiometric dating, you probably understand it. It is worth mentioning that if you don't accept radiometric dating then you disagree with the CPT people like TB and TC. CPT accepts the reliability of radiometric dating, they just believe that at some point in the past there was a period of accelerated radioactive decay.The geomagnetic data is a bit more complicated to explain, and the explanation must start with a diagram of the earth's magentic field: The lines of magnetic force intersect the surface of the earth at an angle, and that angle changes according to the degree of latitude on the earth's surface. At point A (marked with a red "A"), which is relatively near the equator, the line intersects the earth's surface at a relatively oblique angle. Sedimentary layers that form at this point on the earth's surface will record the direction of the line of magnetic force.Point B is further from the equator, and the line intersects the earth's surface at an angle more normal (more perpendicular) to the surface. This greater angle of intercept is also recorded in the sedimentary layers as they form.By measuring the angle of magnetization of a sedimentary layer, geologists can tell the latitude on the earth's surface at which the layer formed. And by doing this for consecutive sedimentary layers, geologists can tell how the region moved with respect to latitude over time, because they know the age of each layer through radiometric dating. This diagram illustrates the process: The diagram represents four geologic layers one above the other with ages ranging from 90 million years ago on the bottom to 60 million years ago on the top. The arrow in each layer represents the direction of magnetization of that layer.The direction of magnetization in the oldest layer, the 90 million year old layer at the bottom of the diagram, is horizontal and corresonds to the equator. That means this part of the continent was at the equator 90 million years ago. The next layer up at 80 million years old has a direction of magnetization that points up at a modest angle. This means that in 10 million years the continent moved away from the equator. We'll presume it moved north, though it could as easily have moved south.The next layer up at 70 million years old has a direction of magnetization that points up at a slightly higher angle, and this means that in 10 million years this part of the continent has moved even further north. And the layer above that, the topmost layer at 60 million years old, has a direction of magnetization that points up at an even higher angle, indicating that this part of the continent has continued to move north.As I alluded to before, based on just this data we don't actually know whether the continent moved north or south because we don't know the direction of magnetization of the earth at the time. The earth's magnetic field goes through periodic reversals every half million years or so which can confuse the analysis, but once you know whether the plate was above or below the equator at some point in time it is safe to assume that subsequent motions are on the same side of the equator, since a continent sized object cannot ping-ping back and forth across the equator in short time periods.The rotational orientation of the continent can also be determined from the geomagnetic data. That's because when a layer forms the direction of magnetization always aligns north/south. Any sedimentary layer we examine today with a direction of magnetization aligned differently than north/south means that the continent must have rotated since the layer formed.As you can see, the latitude of a continent and its rotation is relatively easy to derive from the geomagnetic data. Much more difficult is the determination of longitude. Determining longitude was a very difficult task for mariners, too, before the invention of accurate timepieces. I'm not actually aware of all the methods geologists use in determining longitude, but we do have one significant clue in the current positions of the continents, and another significant clue in the matching of geological character and strata on widely separated continents. For example, the geological evidence tells us that the east coast of South America and the west Coast of Africa were once joined. But that exhausts my knowledge about how geologists determine longitudinal tectonic motion.Both CPT and mainstream PT agree on the methods for determining the past positions of continents. TB actually posted the progression of positions of the continents at Message 9. That's why you may want to open your own thread. If you disagree with the diagram TB provided, then you're arguing outside the topic of this thread. Zero. Science doesn't postulate the existence of phenomena for which there is no evidence, plus the rate of motion of CPT is not consistent with known physical laws because of the huge amount of heat that would be generated, nor consistent with physical evidence which would be copious everywhere around the globe if this the level of catastrophic activity required by CPT had actually occurred a mere 5000 years ago. Yes, wonderfully, but probably off-topic for this thread. Tectonic collisions slowly build mountain ranges. The Himalayas were formed by the collision of the Indian subcontinent with Asia. This collision continues today, and the Himalayas continue to increase in height today. The Rocky Mountains, even though considerably inland, were formed by collision of the North American plate with the Pacific Plate. The force of the collision was projected inland and the Rocky Mountains were thrust up in a process known as thrust faulting. This isn't true that I'm aware. What changes in mainstream plate tectonic theory are you thinking of? Please start a new thread if you think an off-topic discussion would arise out of this.--Percy

The higher rates of movement are the "catastrphic" part of CPT and do not occur in the mainstream view.So far as I know the known plates all travel at similar rates. Certainly we would know if they were travelling at the rates proposed by CPT or even close.The evidence indicates that the historic rate of movement over the last few million years was similar to current rates. IIRC there were faster rates in the distant past but still far closer to modern rates than those proposed by CPTPT may well be related to the uplift of the Colorado Plateau but that is the only connection to the Grand Canyon I can think of. The cause of the Canyon is a long period of erosion while the plateau was slowly uplifted (and if CPT would dramatically increase the rate of uplift, the Grand Canyon could well be evidence against CPT - too fast and the river would have to go around the plateau instead of cutting across it)Mountain ranges are not caused by great catastophes, but by relatively slow collisions of tectonic plates (there is a good deal of force behind them but the actual movement is slow).

I was on vacation so I didn't keep up. I will just address this one issue and make a general point.TC says:"How can you present this as a problem if you do not understand it sufficiently to do so? I agree the geophysics of runaway subduction is directly relevant to CPT."One can admit to not knowing all of the details of a proposed mechanism (particularly when the details have been so poorly spelled out as is the case with the mechanisms and consequences of CPT) and still know that there is a basic physics problem. For example, rapid movement of continents obviously requires a great deal of energy. The energy has to come from somewhere. (Conservation of mass and energy). Furthermore, energy conversions are always wasteful so there is going to be a great deal of excess energy that is going to be thrown off as heat and in kinetic energy (tsunamis). Now you can argue that the "onus" is not on you but you and other YECers are the ones making the claim that CPT is a viable explanation for how a global flood could have occured. Therefore you have to explain it in a way that makes sense from a mainstream science point of view (that is, miracles are not allowed). You can't just say "runaway subduction" without explaining the details. And you have to account for the energy source AND the disposition of the excess energy.
Furthermore, there seems to be some goalpost shifting going on with regard to the how fast the plates were moving. From a biblical literalist point of view, doesn't all of the plate movement have to occur within the time frame of about a year? Isn't this what Baumgardner would claim, for example? If you are going to argue a much longer time frame, then you have to explain how to get enough water to cover Mt. Everest. And that takes us back to square one, doesn't it?edit to correct typo.This message has been edited by deerbreh, 07-06-2005 11:49 AMThis message has been edited by deerbreh, 07-06-2005 12:14 PM

Very well Edge,I'm sure many of you are convinced that PT theory SANS ‘immense’ catastrophies (e.g., plates sliding 10 mi/day) is parsimonious and predictable, Rocky mountains, their fish fossils, canyons, and all.As for me and my house, its gonna take a little more convincing, geology study, etc.I'm neither geologist nor theologian. So forgive my ignorance at present while I lurk a little.Thanks,

Percy,I have to apologize for my lack of knowledge of PT and not knowing the slow rise of the Himalayas continues today. I am currently rethinking my logic.Also, your thoughtful and penetrating reply (and references) is astonishing to say the least. I durst not ask any other questions until I have fully assimilated your data and recovered from being blown away (if you will).(Note my response to Edge)Thanks,Philip

You're very lucky because you're sitting right next to one of the best signs of the age of North America. Get a copy of GoogleEarth. Enter Albertville, AL. Now look just a ways to the east and you'll find some intriguing geographic formations. As you follow them they'll take you north and up the coast.After you've looked them over, maybe we can discuss them some.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Paulk,See my response to Percy and Edge, and Percy’s response Especially note Percy’s response to my questions and his illustration of the Himalayan mountains rising today (i.e., due to plate collision forces, it seems).Please understand I am currently rethinking my CPT and PT logic, my increasing data on the subject, etc.Thank you for 'patiently tolerating' my ignorance in geology. I'll do the same for other persons ignorant in microbiology or medicine.A side note: I’m willing to jump out of the CPT boat so long as there is absolutely no contradiction with the Bible record. As a ‘believer’ I’m forced to reconcile some OEC with YEC and to believe the ‘global flood’ proofs (whatever they be).Philip

Very well,But see my response to Paulk

Certainly, you are free to believe whatever you want. The problem you will face is when your assertions conflict with known scientific facts.For your information, I have been studying geology for several decades and see no viable alternative to normal plate tectonics. It is a powerful tool. Having said that, if someone came up with a better theory with better explanatory powers, I would be more than willing to adopt it. That is one difference between you and me and between religion and science. No apologies necessary. It takes a long time to obtain the knowledge and experience that you see on this board.

Actually, there is no conflict. If you look at it in a completely unbiased way, you will notice that it is only the YEC interpretation of the Bible that is in conflict with plate tectonics and evolution.

Edge, I wish I could believe that. The conflict I perceive is the biblical record of the global flood and Noah’s ark, repeatedly stressed by OT and NT passages; it is ubiquitous to the Bible. Also, there are relatively concrete established timelines after Gen 2. I apologize if I’m getting off topic.Geological plates (i.e., as per Percy’s arguments) ensnare me somewhat. It will take me some time to factor and figure all this into acceptable unified-theory that fits the Gospel and Bible.1) Were not CPT theory(s), Hydroplate theory(s), Vapor Canopy theory(s), etc. suggested in the first place, by biblical apologists (YECs) trying to make sense of it all?2) Does PT theory go against the ‘global flood’? (I know of only one theistic-Evo who himself believed there was a global flood (vs. localized flood)?3) Biblical apologists (myself included) state TIME IS BUILT INTO GEOLOGY Gen. 1 and 2 are certainly supportive of this hypothesis. To prove fictional or even hand-wave out CPT doesn’t matter to me, unless it is biblically necessary to have CPT around.4) ‘Global flood’ theories of the Bible are necessary to Biblicists (especially evangelists). Many Biblicists (including Noah) taught that sea-world is real. Also, this water planet was founded upon one or 2 floods. No one believed it.5) Bias itself doesn’t matter to this ‘believer’. I don’t tentatively hypothesize the global flood. It happened: It may have been
A) supernatural oceans that became H2O
B) And/or more empirical oceans (as we existentially perceive them).