Continental Drift

[sulphur]

I read some of it and afeeling of total exasperation came .WHat utter rubbish

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
Since npetreley has Morat on "ignore", I'll repaste the link so he won't miss it

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html#proof22

Edit: npetreley, Morat wants you to know that building and caves aren't the same thing. Not even close.

(Heh, I wonder how long until I get put on "ignore", too )

Great,,,,I guess I'm next then huh?  So...ignoring those that contradict or give evidence against your beliefs Nick?  Someone help me...what is that referred to as in a debate?

 

[Smilin]

Here Nick:
Since you didn't want to scroll back to address my question, I've reposted it for you:

You're hypothesis doesn't fit the evidence we have now within the mountain ranges. That's why I don't grasp it. Let's just say I accept your notion...All major mountain ranges were formed by a global flood just a few thousand years ago. Okay...now you have to explain the cave formations within these mountains. I'll give you one single cave..one single formation to make it simple. Cumberland Caverns.....first formation you'll stop at on the commercial tour. A massive ground formation, complete with a water fall and massive pool. 1 cubic inch of this particular formation forms every hundered years. Given the measurements, this one particular formation is over 100,000 years old. Now Nick...since I accept your notions (blindly), you have to explain the age of this particular cave formation within a mountain range that is no older than 10,000 years.

What it comes down to...their is OTHER geological proof to consider. This particular mountain range doesn't fit your timeline.
I'm sure I can find cave formations in ALL the mountain ranges that don't fit your timeline either.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by npetreley
No, I'm saying there's no way to know if no formations are over 4,000 years old. I have no problem with people speculating that they're 100,000 years old or whatever. But let's simply be honest here and admit it's all speculation.

You're lack of knowledge of how scientists work amazes me.  Measuring the growth rate of cave formations is not speculation.  What facts can you present that scientists have no way of accurately dating cave formations?

  You keep 'insisting' on speculation, yet you're unable to answer the technical questions posed to you within this thread.  You maintain that everyone who disagrees with you is 'speculating'.  The entire scientific community would maintain that you are simply ignorant to the facts, and the science behind them.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by npetreley
Here are more...

http://aig.gospelcom.net/home/area/magazines/docs/cen_v9n4_stalactites.asp

Poor examples Nick.  I can show you stalagtite formations within steam plant boilers that form within a matter of months.  You've TOTALLY disregarded the conditions of how DIFFERENT stalagtites form.  The examples you've given in NO WAY resemble the stalagtite, stalagmite formations within the different caves of the world, or the processes that formed them.

(I can generate stalagtites/stalagmites within an aquarium overnight, simple 6th grade science demonstration).....Yet for me to assert that cave formations happen overnight would be sheer stupidity.

 

[sulphur]

Smilin check .The mites go up and the tites come down.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by sulphur
Smilin check .The mites go up and the tites come down.

Are you referring to the stalagtite formations within coal burning boilers within steam power plants?

Or are you referring to growing stalagtites/stalagmites in a home aquarium for science demonstrations?

 

[sulphur]

NO I am talking about field excursions Iam really not a misynogist

 

[sulphur]

there is a "c" inthere some where smilin

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by sulphur
there is a "c" inthere some where smilin

stalactites....whoops...my spelling error  :o

 

[raybuffer]

test

 

[sulphur]

has the plotting of palaeomagnetismn proved beyond doubt that continental drift is a FACT

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Originally posted by sulphur
has the plotting of palaeomagnetismn proved beyond doubt that continental drift is a FACT

I'd say so. Paleomag is more of a graduate study here, and I'm not quite there yet, but it's often studied in conjunction with plate tectonics as one line of evidence.

Additionally, I believe geologists have used GIS and/or GPS to quantitatively track the movement of plates as they move on the order of centimeters per year (this seems to be the best direct evidence of plate motions). We also have evidence from Benioff zones where one plate is subducted beneath another creating a roughly linear distribution of earthquake foci in the subsurface which geologists theorize is the result of faulting and friction along the surface of the subducted slab as it moves deeper into the subsurface beneath the less buoyant plate. We can also look at the formation of the Emperor Seamount Chain (which includes Hawaii) via the principle of uniformitarianism to infer that the Pacific Plate has moved across a hot spot over time to create this chain. I'm sure there are tons of other lines of evidence to follow to support the theory of plate tectonics. So paleomagnetism can tell us where plates used to be, Benioff zones show evidence from which we can infer a mechanism, and GIS/GPS show us that the continents are indeed moving at present.

Sorry, if you already knew all this, but I just thought I'd chip a couple of pennies in. I'm a geology major, so sometimes it's hard to shut me up when it comes to geologic topics...they're just too fascinating .