Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,352 Year: 3,609/9,624 Month: 480/974 Week: 93/276 Day: 21/23 Hour: 1/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   20 Questions... (from Walt Brown to evolutionists)
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3944
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 23 of 46 (78131)
01-12-2004 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by crashfrog
01-12-2004 10:10 PM


quote:
Plus it's obvious that Mars was hit by something very, very large - so large it bulged out the solar system's tallest mountain on the other side of the planet.
You have something to back up that statement?
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by crashfrog, posted 01-12-2004 10:10 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by crashfrog, posted 01-12-2004 11:59 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3944
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 39 of 46 (78265)
01-13-2004 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by IrishRockhound
01-08-2004 10:59 AM


quote:
Major Mountain Ranges - Tectonics
I use this context, to take a shot at whomever it was that proposed that Lake Titicaca, in the Andes Mountains, was tectonicly uplifted from sea level.
As I understand it (weasel phrase for "I'm not going to supply a link"), the Andes Mountains are of volcanic origin, with tectonic uplift having little to nothing to do with their height. Of course, tectonism is the root cause of the volcanism.
The volcanic rock type "andesite" got its name from the Andes.
So Major Mountain Ranges - Tectonic uplift and/or volcanism.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by IrishRockhound, posted 01-08-2004 10:59 AM IrishRockhound has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3944
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 46 of 46 (78794)
01-15-2004 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by lpetrich
01-15-2004 9:07 PM


Re: Andes Mountains built by plate tectonics, not volcanism
Your cited article is pretty brief, so a searched around more, and found (to my surprise) that the origins history of the Andes Mountains is much more complex than I thought, and processes that formed one part of the chain may well be very different that the processes that formed other parts of the chain. Shamefully, I fell victim to an oversimplified vision of things.
I must concede, that tectonic uplift seems to be a very big part of the picture, in at least some areas of the Andes. It seems pretty hard to track down a good summary of what the relative contributions of volcanism and tectonic uplift were, in the big picture, in giving the mountains their great height. I still suspect that straight volcanism was sometimes the major component, but I may be wrong.
I'll now plead "too much ignorance", and drop any further discussion of the Andes formation. I await the opinion of a real expert on the genesis of the Andes.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by lpetrich, posted 01-15-2004 9:07 PM lpetrich 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