Creationist Challenge: Plate Tectonics

[dlamberth]

. There are other theories that answer the same questions that Pangea does, they just aren't quite so common.

What are those other theories?

.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

What are those other theories?

.

Flood. Most of the questions of Pangea are about how the same animals could have ended up on different continents. Dead animals float, right?

I don't know if I've said this, but I'm unsure where I stand on this. I think alot of people don't care what science says, only if they can use it. I think alot of people don't care what the Bible says, only if they can use it. I'm trying to personally explore different views and I find that, especially in science, an "Agnostic" view, in that "I don't know", is best. Just wanted to say that, because I think that I've defenitely come off the other way.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

Ages of the Hawaiian Island volcanoes can be measured by isochron dating. Radiometric dates are consistent with paleomagnetic data and with dates obtained from index fossils as well as with the amount of erosion on the islands.

Let me make a guess, you a YEC who will reject any and all facts that disagree with an interpretation of the Bible which you guess to be the only correct one.

Now do you have anything substantive to say on the topic of plate tectonics?

Those links you gave didn't work. How about an internet link?

 

[dawiyd]

Flood. Most of the questions of Pangea are about how the same animals could have ended up on different continents. Dead animals float, right?

I don't know if I've said this, but I'm unsure where I stand on this. I think alot of people don't care what science says, only if they can use it. I think alot of people don't care what the Bible says, only if they can use it. I'm trying to personally explore different views and I find that, especially in science, an "Agnostic" view, in that "I don't know", is best. Just wanted to say that, because I think that I've defenitely come off the other way.

Flood, ok.
Why are fossils found in mountains not on them, why are also the fossils found in-situ, if they were floating and then deposited they would not be found in-situ.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Those links you gave didn't work. How about an internet link?

They work for me, but you do need adobe acrobat for the one on isochron dating. It is a free download.

 

[dlamberth]

Flood. Most of the questions of Pangea are about how the same animals could have ended up on different continents. Dead animals float, right?

From a geology perspective, I want to know about the various rock formations that are the same on the different continents. These continuation of formations across widely spaced continents don't make sense until like a puzzle we move the continents back 250 million years.

For instance, when we move the pieces back together, we find out that the Appalachian ranges are from the same mountain chain as the Atlas Mountains in Morocco.

Edited to add wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachians

.

 

[Elduran]

Flood. Most of the questions of Pangea are about how the same animals could have ended up on different continents. Dead animals float, right?

If I remember correctly animals float for only a short time after death as gas is produced due to unchecked internal reactions, after which the body sinks. As such, no, dead animals don't float long enough to get across the ocean to another continent!

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

If I remember correctly animals float for only a short time after death as gas is produced due to unchecked internal reactions, after which the body sinks. As such, no, dead animals don't float long enough to get across the ocean to another continent!

Then there's also the simple answer of the connection of America to Asia. The Americas are connected, Europe and Asia are, Africa is connected to both Europe and Asia (arguably), or at least could have been with minimal shift. So, with the exception of Antarctica (what have we found there?) and Australia, which could arguably be connected by island jumps, is there that big of a problem?

And I don't know about the geology. I can't get what you're trying to show me, and so I'd appreciate an online link, because I can't see it. As is, I don't really know it anyways, but in science I've found that there is always another logical explanation. Then again, there's always another illogical explanation, but I don't think that matters.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Flood.

What flood? I hope you don't mean the long falsified world wide flood.

Most of the questions of Pangea are about how the same animals could have ended up on different continents. Dead animals float, right?

Biogeography does provide convincing evidence for continental drift and not just from fossils and animals. The Southern Beech is a plant whose seeds can't survive exposure to water and its distribution pattern fits with continental drift. However, this is only a small part of the evidence for plate tectonics.

I don't know if I've said this, but I'm unsure where I stand on this. I think alot of people don't care what science says, only if they can use it. I think alot of people don't care what the Bible says, only if they can use it. I'm trying to personally explore different views and I find that, especially in science, an "Agnostic" view, in that "I don't know", is best. Just wanted to say that, because I think that I've defenitely come off the other way.

Some more discussion of plate tectonics and the evidence for the theory can be found

Here

and

Here

and

Here

a discussion of paleomagnetism evidence is included HERE.

Current rates of plate movement can be measured by GPS and I have given reasons why they could not have been super fast in the recent past in several previous posts in this thread.

 

[KerrMetric]

Why do I think the word boy at the end of The_Horses_Boy is the wrong 3 letter word?

Mmmm - what alternatives spring to mind?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Why do I think the word boy at the end of The_Horses_Boy is the wrong 3 letter word?

Mmmm - what alternatives spring to mind?

Naughty naughty.

 

[KerrMetric]

Naughty naughty.

The_Horses_Man

The_Horses_Leg


You get the idea.

 

[Elduran]

Then there's also the simple answer of the connection of America to Asia. The Americas are connected, Europe and Asia are, Africa is connected to both Europe and Asia (arguably), or at least could have been with minimal shift. So, with the exception of Antarctica (what have we found there?) and Australia, which could arguably be connected by island jumps, is there that big of a problem?

So what about the areas where we have fossils of creatures found on both sides of the Atlantic ocean but not in any other area? Did these animals suddenly charge several thousand miles north, cross the tundra then come back down several thousand miles before deciding that this was a nice new habitat?

 

[notto]

Oh I see... So a guess, based on a guess, based on a guess. Hmmmmm...

I'd like to know how they got those ages. I've got a hunch, but it's very important to know.

No guessing required. There are 3-4 different mechanisms in place for the formation of the Hawaiian Island chain that all point to gradual and consistent plate movements.

There is no guessing involved and the theory in place explains all the evidence.

Your concern was how do we know the plate movement was gradual. This evidence can only be explained with slow and gradual plate movement.

If the plates move quicker, islands would not build and the erosion patterns would not be the same. If the movement wasn't uniform and consistent, the dating would not provide a linear pattern (and match the erosion profile). The patterns we see in both erosion and distance from the current activity combined with the dating of the islands all point to a internally consisten theory about the timeframe and the nature of the formation of the Hawaiian Islands. All of the data is available for your review. If you don't understand it, just ask questions. If you think you have spotted an actual problem with the data, methodology, or theory, then point it out.

Handwaving won't do it.

If you are going to ignore this evidence, that is your choice. Just don't act like you can explain it any other way or that your dismissal is based on an understanding of the evidence that we do have. It clearly is based on a bias to dismiss anything that doesnt match your original position that is based on ignorance.

 

[dlamberth]

No guessing required. There are 3-4 different mechanisms in place for the formation of the Hawaiian Island chain that all point to gradual and consistent plate movements.

Another example is Yellowstone Park. All of the geothermal activity in the park is produced by a hot spot. The earliest traces of the Yellowstone Hot spot was 16 million years ago in South Eastern Oregon. The westward movement of the North American Continent for the last 16 million years can be traced as the Yellowstone Hot Spot burned through the crust creating the Snake River Plain.

Some links can be found here:
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/figures/fig1.html
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/north_america/yellowstone.html
http://www.mines.utah.edu/~ggcmpsem/UUSATRG/CD-Yel/ys-geodyn.html

 

[dad]

In post 32 of this thread I wrote

So we see that young earth creationists are entirely unable to answer the challenge of plate tectonics. The heat released by the cooling of the crust and lithosphere would have cooked the earth to death,

I can.

the pattern of sediments on the sea floor is consistent with deposition over millions of years and not with super rapid movement, the depth profile of the oceans is consistent with slow movement and not fast

Could you simply the basic point of these things? Your link I find unclear.

and the crystal structure of sea floor rocks such as gabbros is consistent with slow spreading and conductive cooling. and is not consistent with rapid cooling that would be required to solidfy the crust during rapid plate movement.

If we look at the present, and how fast rock now cools, of course, but there is NO reason to do that.

We have had a thread on this forum discussing how the Hawaiian Island seamount is consistent with slow and not rapid plate movement.

I see nothing inconsistant with the former different cooling rates, so?

Patterns of paleomagnetism on the seafloor are also consistent with slow plate movement and not rapid plate movement.

Magnetic flux in the split process, and seperation would seem reasonable. Again, you always come back to the same past story, which is always assumed, never supportable.

Overall there are several lines of evidence that overlap to show conclusively that plates have been moving slowly for many millions of years.

No, you have interpreted things in a present perspective. No can do.

 

[dad]

..The westward movement of the North American Continent for the last 16 million years can be traced as the Yellowstone Hot Spot burned through the crust creating the Snake River Plain.

Movement is fine.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Bizarro speculations about an absurd past with radically different laws of physics that just happen to somehow conspire to lead to an earth with every appearance of continental drift over hundreds of millions of years and every appearance of geologic and fossil records that accumulated over hundreds of millions of years are so absurd as to not be worth commenting on. They are just a slight twist on last Thursdayism and make God out to be a deceiver who made a world that would look ancient within a few thousand years and then changed the laws of nature to make us think the earth really is ancient and erased all evidence of that change in the laws to make sure we would be deceived. The only question is when was the Thursday? Was it Thursday last week or a Thursday 4,300 years ago.

The absurdity of dad's blather is clear to anyone who can think logically but will never be clear to dad so there is no point in discussion.

So dad why don't you fly off in your sapphire throne and spend your transparent gold on whatever and stop polluting threads with your wacko delusions?

Now does any YEC have anything scientific to say about the problem that plate tectonics creates for Young Earth Creationism.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Another example is Yellowstone Park. All of the geothermal activity in the park is produced by a hot spot. The earliest traces of the Yellowstone Hot spot was 16 million years ago in South Eastern Oregon. The westward movement of the North American Continent for the last 16 million years can be traced as the Yellowstone Hot Spot burned through the crust creating the Snake River Plain.
Some links can be found here:
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/figures/fig1.html
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/north_america/yellowstone.html
http://www.mines.utah.edu/~ggcmpsem/UUSATRG/CD-Yel/ys-geodyn.html

And of course the supervolcanoes from the Yellowstone hot along with all the other volcanic activity associated with plate movements are something else that YEC can't deal with.

The Frumious Bandesnatch

 

[dad]

Bizarro speculations about an absurd past with radically different laws of physics that just happen to somehow conspire to lead to an earth with every appearance of continental drift over hundreds of millions of years and every appearance of geologic and fossil records that accumulated over hundreds of millions of years are so absurd as to not be worth commenting on. They are just a slight twist on last Thursdayism and make God out to be a deceiver who made a world that would look ancient within a few thousand years and then changed the laws of nature to make us think the earth really is ancient and erased all evidence of that change in the laws to make sure we would be deceived. The only question is when was the Thursday? Was it Thursday last week or a Thursday 4,300 years ago.

The absurdity of dad's blather is clear to anyone who can think logically but will never be clear to dad so there is no point in discussion.

So dad why don't you fly off in your sapphire throne and spend your transparent gold on whatever and stop polluting threads with your wacko delusions?

Now does any YEC have anything scientific to say about the problem that plate tectonics creates for Young Earth Creationism.

In other words you have no proof or evidence whatsoever the past was the same but insist on claiming it was, and making all assumptions accordingly. Guess the question I asked about simply stating a few things you brought up exposing another interesting thing. You can't do it. Talk about wacko delusions.