Dinosaur footprints destroy flood geology.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Heh, when you try to speed up natural processes by factors of a million to a billion, things tend to get absurd. For example, if you compress the tectonic movements since the last pangaea into a single year (as many flood geologists do), you end up with so much friction from the moving of the continents in that year to evaporate the oceans.

The gravitational energy the would be released as friction would probably be more than enough to boil the ocean. An even bigger problem is the heat released from the cooling of the new ocean crust and lithosphere that would be generated by plate movement. I did the calculations may years ago. I will now self-promote by old thread Catastrophic Plate Tectonics would have ended life on Earth.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

The gravitational energy the would be released as friction would probably be more than enough to boil the ocean. An even bigger problem is the heat released from the cooling of the new ocean crust and lithosphere that would be generated by plate movement. I did the calculations may years ago. I will now self-promote by old thread Catastrophic Plate Tectonics would have ended life on Earth.

Good Link I like it.

FOR ROB BYERS

As far as Rob Byers is concerned, I am going to attempt to walk him through the rock cycle, but I will be amazed if he hangs around, at the first stiff of Uniformiatrianism he’ll be off.

Anyway second lesson for Rob, now that we have agreed that the rock cycle posted is correct from both sides of the debate.

Bowen’s Reaction Series.

Below is a diagram names “Bowen’s Reaction Series” after the man who first realised there was a link between temperature, chemical composition and minerals fractionated (solidified from the melt) from the melt (magma). Basically if you start with a magma of basaltic composition at 1400 degrees centigrade the first silica minerals to fractionate will be Olivine and Ca rich plagioclase and so on down through the series.

Also as minerals fractionate out they preferentially remove certain elements, i.e. olivine removes Mg and Fe from the melt so the melt become richer in SiO2. So a melt that starts with a basaltic composition can end up with a granitic composition.

Here’s a LINK, have a read and let me know if you agree or disagree with this well established and tested theory of mineral fractionation. If you disagree please give me links to the YEC alternative.

 

[RobertByers]

How?

Are your saying that all igneous and metamorphic rock and much of the sedimentary rocks were created in one year????

Why don't you start by telling us exactly which rocks are preflood, which are flood and which are post flood?
Perhaps you should read the History of the Collapse of Flood Geology and a Young Earth by evangelical Christian Davis Young.

Very simple. Since there is a limited amount of time and great evidence of earth processes then the great event of the flood is to account for all rocks that are the result of processes.
Save some post flood events including active volcanos today.
The original rock of earth possibly was never seen by pre=flood people/fauna. All a deep dirt layer.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

Very simple. Since there is a limited amount of time and great evidence of earth processes then the great event of the flood is to account for all rocks that are the result of processes.
Save some post flood events including active volcanos today.
The original rock of earth possibly was never seen by pre=flood people/fauna. All a deep dirt layer.

 

[RobertByers]

Heh, when you try to speed up natural processes by factors of a million to a billion, things tend to get absurd. For example, if you compress the tectonic movements since the last pangaea into a single year (as many flood geologists do), you end up with so much friction from the moving of the continents in that year to evaporate the oceans.

I hear you about the friction thing. Yet this is speculation. other reasons can be discovered for why this would not be a problem. In fact whenever I read about kinds of rock from volcanic action all I see it the flood year. Here in Canada on the Canada shield.
We translate everything into the flood year and it all works. in fact it seems strange to me for the first geologists to reject the bible, which geology was based on, when everything fits.

 

[RobertByers]

Chordateslegacy
Wait a minute.
I don't agree magna created the original rock of earth or that it did anything different then what creationism would see as reaction to moving continents and all the chaos underground.

I read the link but again all it means is what we agree. Magna was going crazy during the flood year and thats the source for any results from magna. Save small events post flood.
I don't see that magna was doing anything before the flood but was restrained within a boundary. It only poped out during the flood.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Chordateslegacy
Wait a minute.
I don't agree magna created the original rock of earth or that it did anything different then what creationism would see as reaction to moving continents and all the chaos underground.

I read the link but again all it means is what we agree. Magna was going crazy during the flood year and thats the source for any results from magna. Save small events post flood.
I don't see that magna was doing anything before the flood but was restrained within a boundary. It only poped out during the flood.

Rob Byers

You have made a statement, which for this discussion I am prepared to take seriously, but you will have to back it up with some evidence, research papers, even web sites explaining the petrology, physics and chemistry of how a solid mantle is able to move at the rates you are indicating.

The Earth’s interior.

Above is the structure of the Earth’s interior; basically the inner core is solid, the outer core liquid, the mantle is solid but behaves similar to plastic, the crust is solid and behaves as a rigid material.

How do we know this?

Because of seismic waves; there are several types of seismic waves, but two are important in studying the Earth’s interior (P waves and S waves). Firstly compressional (P waves) travel faster than Shear waves (S waves) at speeds of between 1.5 and 8 km second in the crust, whereas shear waves travel at ~60-70 % the speed of P waves. P waves also have the ability to travel through liquids, whereas S waves cannot. Also when these waves move from one material to another they are refracted i.e. they change direction. The differing properties of P waves and S waves allow seismologists to investigate and understand the earth’s interior, so the above diagram can be taken as fact.

Given what we know (which is a lot) about the Earth’s interior; it is impossible to have a solid mantle now, which at best has a viscosity that allows it to creep at about the rate your finger nails grow and a liquid mantle which is what would be needed for plate movements on the scales of kms per day. Not to mention the extremely elevated temperatures needed to have a molten mantle.

LINK 1

LINK 2


Mantle Convection quoted from HERE


Mantle Convection What forces would lead to the movement of the plates over the surface of the earth? At this time it is believed this movement results from mantle convection. Deep within the earth there is a large amount of heat coming from two sources: the magma remnants of the Great Bombardment, and radiation from radioactive elements. This heat, in accordance with the 2 ndlaw of thermodynamics, must flow to a cooler place, and subsequently rises to the surface of the Earth. If the Earth were smaller, this heat would flow by conduction, but because of the relatively large size of the Earth, convection also takes place. Thus, as in heating a pot of water on a stove, convection currents are established within the earth, which bring warm material to the surface and send cooler material to the interior.

Earth's convection currents

​

The time scale involved for rocks to rise from the lower mantle to the surface, get cooled, and return to the interior is estimated to be around 200 million years. The resulting convection currents around the earth's surface is thought to be the driving force behind the movement of the plates.

MANTLE CONVECTION from HERE

It is not good enough to say “it only popped out during the flood” because there was not the volumes of magma in the upper mantle and lower crust to account for the amount of igneous rocks on the surface to have formed in a year.

If creationists are going to hypotheses that all the worlds ocean basins were formed in one year, they then have to go out find the evidence, do the experimentation publish the results and then if what they say cannot be disproved, it my make it to a theory. At present all creationists are doing is making lots of noise and no research at all.

I am still taking you seriously, but you now have to come up with some concrete evidence, observations, experimentation to back up your claims of the earth being pretty much resurfaced in a year.

 

[Chalnoth]

I hear you about the friction thing. Yet this is speculation. other reasons can be discovered for why this would not be a problem. In fact whenever I read about kinds of rock from volcanic action all I see it the flood year. Here in Canada on the Canada shield.
We translate everything into the flood year and it all works. in fact it seems strange to me for the first geologists to reject the bible, which geology was based on, when everything fits.

Well, sure, if you want to say Newtonian mechanics is fundamentally wrong. Three hundred years of experimentation and discovery would, of course, disagree with you. But you're free to claim it and look like a moron.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Very simple. Since there is a limited amount of time and great evidence of earth processes then the great event of the flood is to account for all rocks that are the result of processes.
Save some post flood events including active volcanos today.
The original rock of earth possibly was never seen by pre=flood people/fauna. All a deep dirt layer.

In other words you can't even begin to actually answer the question.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Originally Posted by Chalnoth
Heh, when you try to speed up natural processes by factors of a million to a billion, things tend to get absurd. For example, if you compress the tectonic movements since the last pangaea into a single year (as many flood geologists do), you end up with so much friction from the moving of the continents in that year to evaporate the oceans.

I hear you about the friction thing. Yet this is speculation. other reasons can be discovered for why this would not be a problem. In fact whenever I read about kinds of rock from volcanic action all I see it the flood year. Here in Canada on the Canada shield.
We translate everything into the flood year and it all works. in fact it seems strange to me for the first geologists to reject the bible, which geology was based on, when everything fits.

When you say "we" do you mean ICR and their Catastrophic Plate Tectonics Model of the Global Flood? The model by Baumgardner et al admits that 10[sup]28[/sup] Joules of gravitational potenial energy is released by the process they also call "Runaway Subduction". This gravitational potential energy must be converted to heat due to friction. the is the friction that Chalnoth is talking about and it is about 3X more heat than needed to boil all the water in all the oceans and convert the atmosphere to high pressure steam. But this is only a small fraction of the heat released.

Wait a minute.
I don't agree magna created the original rock of earth or that it did anything different then what creationism would see as reaction to moving continents and all the chaos underground.

What it would have done as a results of rapidly moving continents would have been to sterilize the earth.

I read the link but again all it means is what we agree. Magna was going crazy during the flood year and thats the source for any results from magna. Save small events post flood.
I don't see that magna was doing anything before the flood but was restrained within a boundary. It only poped out during the flood.

Magma would indeed be "going crazy" during the flood or whenever there was super rapid continent movement and this generates several times more heat in addition to the 10[sup]28[/sup] j from the friction.
This analysis in blue from my thread Catastrophic plate tectonics would have ended life on earth.

Heat to cool the crust
The ocean crust is about 7,000 meters thick. This is 7 x 10[sup]5[/sup] cm.

The surface area of the ocean is about 360,000,000 or 3.6 x 10[sup]8[/sup] sq km.

There are 10[sup]10[/sup] sq cm in a square km so the oceans cover 3.6 x 10[sup]18[/sup] cm[sup]2[/sup] of the earth's surface.

This makes the volume of the ocean crust 2.6 x 10[sup]24[/sup] cc.

The density of crust rocks is about 3.3 so there is about 8 x 10[sup]24[/sup] g of crust. When the crust cools to the point that it solidifies it will release heat that is called the latent heat of fusion.

This amounts to approximately 400 J per gram so solidification of the crust will release about 3.3 x 10[sup]27[/sup] J of heat.

The rock also has to cool by about 1000 degrees Kelvin to get to its current temperature. The heat capacity of basalt is about 1 J per gram per degree K so each gram of Basalt will release about 1000 J as it cools and since there are 8 x 10[sup]24[/sup] grams of rock 8 x 10[sup]27[/sup] Joules of heat would be released.

The total heat released is more than 10[sup]28[/sup] J. Now far more than this will be released cooling the lithosphere but even 10[sup]28[/sup] J is enough to cook the earth to death many times over. This is just for the crust, my guess is that about 10 time more heat will be released cooling the lithosphere but I haven't calculated it yet.

Boiling the Oceans

How much heat is 10[sup]28[/sup] J? It is a lot. Consider this. There are about 1.4 x 10[sup]24[/sup] grams of water in the oceans of the world. It takes about 420 J to heat a gram of water to 100 C and another 2260 to boil it at one atmosphere pressure. Thus it would take about 5.9 x 10[sup]26[/sup] J to heat the oceans to 100 C and another 3.2 x 10[sup]27[/sup] to boil them away at standard pressure. This still leaves nearly 2 thirds of the heat unaccounted for from even 10[sup]28[/sup] J and far more heat than this is released. As the water boils the steam will cause the air pressure to increase, because air pressure is hydrostatic, and more heat will be needed to get to the boiling point but the heat of vaporization decreases until it reaches zero at the critical point and the total heat required does not increase all that much. The final result of releasing 10[sup]28[/sup] grams of heat into the oceans will be an atmosphere of saturated steam at a pressure about 280 atmospheres and a temperature well above 374 C, the critical point of water. Of course, if you don’t release the heat into the oceans you will get temperatures far higher than this. As we see below, it takes only 5.1x10[sup]23[/sup] J to heat the whole atmosphere form 0 to 100 C and 10[sup]28[/sup] J is about 20,000 times more heat than that.

Further I have heard a web cast from Kurt Wise in which he admitted that rapid plate movement would have released several times more heat than the amount required to boil the oceans away and that they had no mechanism for dealing with heat.

 

[Assyrian]

Great intro to the rock cycle ChordatesLegacy, thanks, I have bookmarked the post. Do you know any other good intro to Geology resources?

One thing I have been wondering... Are there any limits to the speed continental crust can move at? Apart from little details like boiling the oceans of course.

To speed up continental drift, the mantle need to be hotter so mantle plumes flow faster. But the hotter the mantle, the less viscous it is and the less friction it has to drag the crust. Do we hit a speed limit?

Also if the mantle was hotter, you wouldn't just get bigger plumes, you would get more of them. They would either end up breaking up the tectonic plates, or they would simply end up pushing in different directions. What I don't think we would see is the current continental motion but simply running faster.

How far off am I?

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Quoted from LINK


CATASTROPHIC PLATE TECTONICS: A GLOBAL FLOOD MODEL OF EARTH HISTORY

Because all current ocean lithosphere seems to date from Flood or post-Flood times [88], we feel that essentially all pre-Flood ocean lithosphere was subducted in the course of the Flood. Gravitational potential energy released by the subduction of this lithosphere is on the order of 1028 J [6]. This alone probably provided the energy necessary to drive Flood dynamics.


The amount of energy to boil the oceans

Let’s say the oceans are at 4 Celsius. First the water must be heated to 100 Celsius. The amount of energy is given by the specific heat of water, which is 4.186 Joules/gram Celsius. That means 4.186 Joules of energy are needed to heat 1 gram of water by 1 Celsius.

The oceans contain 1.37 x 10^24 grams of water at ~4 Celsius.

So if we have 1.37 x 10^24 grams of water at 4 Celsius, you need this much energy

1.37 x 10^24g X (100 Celsius – 4 Celsius) X 4.186 J/g Celsius = 5.5 x 10^26 Joules

Once the water is at 100 Celsius more energy is needed to vaporise it. This is given by the heat of vaporization, which for water is 2261 Joules per gram, so for the earth’s oceans

1.37 x 10^24g x 2261 = 3.1 x 10^27 Joules

Total energy used to boil the oceans 5.5 x 10^26 + 3.1 x 10^27 = 3.65 x 10^27 Joules

That leaves 6.35 x 10^27 Joules of energy after the oceans have been evaporated.


WHAT CAN WE DO WITH THIS ENERGY

The moon has a mass of 7.36 x 10^22 kilograms
We have 6.35 x 10^27 Joules of energy left over after boiling the oceans.

Kinetic energy = 0.5 x mass x velocity^2

So turn this around velocity^2 = 6.35 x 10^27 joules / (0.5 x 7.36 x 10^22 kg)


Velocity = 4.15 metres second

Or 1.5 km hour

The energy left over would be equivalent to that released if the moon fell to earth at 1.5 km hour.



The big question is not the energy released, but where the energy came from to power catastrophic plate tectonics. You get nothing for nothing in this universe.

Frumious Bandersnatch:my apologies for doing the same calculations, I was bored for an hour

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Get intro to the rock cycle ChordatesLegacy, thanks, I have bookmarked the post. Do you know any other good intro to Geology resources?

One thing I have been wondering... Are there any limits to the speed continental crust can move at? Apart from little details like boiling the oceans of course.

To speed up continental drift, the mantle need to be hotter so mantle plumes flow faster. But the hotter the mantle, the less viscous it is and the less friction it has to drag the crust. Do we hit a speed limit?

Also if the mantle was hotter, you wouldn't just get bigger plumes, you would get more of them. They would either end up breaking up the tectonic plates, or they would simply end up pushing in different directions. What I don't think we would see is the current continental motion but simply running faster.

How far off am I?

Get intro to the rock cycle ChordatesLegacy, thanks, I have bookmarked the post. Do you know any other good intro to Geology resources?

Here’s a good link with further links inside

http://www.largeigneousprovinces.org/


One thing I have been wondering... Are there any limits to the speed continental crust can move at? Apart from little details like boiling the oceans of course.

I am sure there is, but I am not going down that road now. The simple fact of the matter is that plate tectonics is fuelled by gravitational settling and radiogenic decay in the earth’s core. To increase plate tectonic movement would need a new and powerful energy source.

Remember conservation of energy “you get nothing for nothing in this universe”


To speed up continental drift, the mantle need to be hotter so mantle plumes flow faster. But the hotter the mantle, the less viscous it is and the less friction it has to drag the crust. Do we hit a speed limit?

You are right in a sense; however the mantle temperature is governed by convection which is fuelled by the heat within the earth’s outer core. To increase the mantle temp, you first have to increase the temp of the outer core.

Also if the mantle was hotter, you wouldn't just get bigger plumes, you would get more of them. They would either end up breaking up the tectonic plates, or they would simply end up pushing in different directions. What I don't think we would see is the current continental motion but simply running faster.

Here a link to a book on the subject LINK

Komatiites erupted billions of years ago as pulsating streams of white-hot lava. Their unusual chemical compositions and exceptionally high formation temperatures produced highly fluid lava that crystallized as spectacular layered flows. Investigation of the extreme conditions in which komatiites formed provides important evidence about the thermal and chemical evolution of the planet, and the nature of the Precambrian mantle. This monograph, written by three experts with long experience in the field, presents a complete account of the characteristics of komatiites including their volcanic structures, textures, mineralogy and chemical compositions. Models for their formation and eruption are evaluated (including the anhydrous vs. hydrous magmas controversy). A chapter is also devoted to the valuable nickel and copper ore deposits found in komatiites. Komatiite is a key reference for researchers and advanced students interested in petrology, Archaean geology, economic geology, and broader questions about the evolution of the Earth’s crust and mantle.


How far off am I?


Keep read, you are doing well

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

For Rob Byers

If has you say; plate tectonics occurred very rapidly during the flood year, you would expect to find high degree melts at the surface, i.e. ultra mafics high in magnesium and iron, but you do not we only find melts of basaltic composition on the sea floors, indicating only partial melting of the upper mantle. So the fact that the ocean floors are basaltic in nature is good evidence that large scale melting and rapid plate tectonics never occurred, because if they had the ocean floor would have a ultra-mafic composition and it does not.



LINK to following quote

Fractional Melting

​

With the development of plate tectonic theory, and the discovery of convergent and divergent boundaries, new processes of fractionation became possible - specifically, fractional melting. The mechanisms of fractional melting occurs at both divergent and convergent boundaries.
At divergent boundaries convection cells bring hot, plastic, silica-rich ultramafic rock toward the surface. The fractionation and solidification of these magmas form the ophiolite suite, the four layers of rock that form the oceanic lithosphere. At depth the plastic, slow moving rock is under great pressure and so has a high melting point. At it moves closer to the surface the pressure diminishes and the hot rock begins to fractionally melt. A basalt " sweats" off and rises to form the pillow basalts of the ocean floor. The unmelted residue is olivine (dunite) and pyroxene rich (peridotite) ultramafics which remain in the mantle.
Factional melting at convergent boundaries occurs above the subducting oceanic plate. Cold basalt of the ocean floor descends into the mantle and gradually heats because of the geothermal gradient and friction of subduction. But the descending slab also carries a lot of sea water with it and at about 120 km down the water and heat lead to fractional melting. The hot melt rises toward the surface, emplacing and crystallizing to form intermediate (diorite, granodiorite, etc.) plutons. The unmelted mafic/ultramafic residue is left behind.

There was never large scale melting; there was never cataclysmic plate tectonics. The only was to have oceanic crust of basaltic composition is by a slow rate of mantle melting; a slow rate of plate movement and no increase in energy above what we see today.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Quoted from LINK


CATASTROPHIC PLATE TECTONICS: A GLOBAL FLOOD MODEL OF EARTH HISTORY

Because all current ocean lithosphere seems to date from Flood or post-Flood times [88], we feel that essentially all pre-Flood ocean lithosphere was subducted in the course of the Flood. Gravitational potential energy released by the subduction of this lithosphere is on the order of 1028 J [6]. This alone probably provided the energy necessary to drive Flood dynamics.


The amount of energy to boil the oceans

Let’s say the oceans are at 4 Celsius. First the water must be heated to 100 Celsius. The amount of energy is given by the specific heat of water, which is 4.186 Joules/gram Celsius. That means 4.186 Joules of energy are needed to heat 1 gram of water by 1 Celsius.

The oceans contain 1.37 x 10^24 grams of water at ~4 Celsius.

So if we have 1.37 x 10^24 grams of water at 4 Celsius, you need this much energy

1.37 x 10^24g X (100 Celsius – 4 Celsius) X 4.186 J/g Celsius = 5.5 x 10^26 Joules

Once the water is at 100 Celsius more energy is needed to vaporise it. This is given by the heat of vaporization, which for water is 2261 Joules per gram, so for the earth’s oceans

1.37 x 10^24g x 2261 = 3.1 x 10^27 Joules

Total energy used to boil the oceans 5.5 x 10^26 + 3.1 x 10^27 = 3.65 x 10^27 Joules

That leaves 6.35 x 10^27 Joules of energy after the oceans have been evaporated.


WHAT CAN WE DO WITH THIS ENERGY

The moon has a mass of 7.36 x 10^22 kilograms
We have 6.35 x 10^27 Joules of energy left over after boiling the oceans.

Kinetic energy = 0.5 x mass x velocity^2

So turn this around velocity^2 = 6.35 x 10^27 joules / (0.5 x 7.36 x 10^22 kg)


Velocity = 4.15 metres second

Or 1.5 km hour

The energy left over would be equivalent to that released if the moon fell to earth at 1.5 km hour.



The big question is not the energy released, but where the energy came from to power catastrophic plate tectonics. You get nothing for nothing in this universe.

Frumious Bandersnatch:my apologies for doing the same calculations, I was bored for an hour

No problem. I think our numbers came out pretty close. If I remember right I first did some of these calculation 7 or 8 years ago in a discussion with Karl Crawford on CARM or maybe on the Old OCW board. I have also posted them on the EvCforum under my original posting name. I never thought of comparing it to a low speed crash with the moon. Another way of looking at 10[sup]28[/sup] J is as watt/seconds. 1 J = 1 watt second. Baumgardner claims the continents completed their motion in the first 150 days of the flood. The surface of the earth is about 5 x 10[sup]14[/sup] sqaure meters. There are 12,960,000 seconds in 150 days so this amount of energy is equivalent to running a 1,500,000 Watt heating unit on every square meter of the earths surface for 150 days. That is only the first 10[sup]28[/sup] J released as gravitational energy. There is another 10[sup]28[/sup] J released to solidify and cool the crust and probably about 3-4x10[sup]28[/sup] J to cool the lithosphere. Anyone for steamed ark soup?

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

No problem. I think our numbers came out pretty close. If I remember right I first did some of these calculation 7 or 8 years ago in a discussion with Karl Crawford on CARM or maybe on the Old OCW board. I have also posted them on the EvCforum under my original posting name. I never thought of comparing it to a low speed crash with the moon. Another way of looking at 10[sup]28[/sup] J is as watt/seconds. 1 J = 1 watt second. Baumgardner claims the continents completed their motion in the first 150 days of the flood. The surface of the earth is about 5 x 10[sup]14[/sup] sqaure meters. There are 12,960,000 seconds in 150 days so this amount of energy is equivalent to running a 1,500,000 Watt heating unit on every square meter of the earths surface for 150 days. That is only the first 10[sup]28[/sup] J released as gravitational energy. There is another 10[sup]28[/sup] J released to solidify and cool the crust and probably about 3-4x10[sup]28[/sup] J to cool the lithosphere. Anyone for steamed ark soup?

Creationists are great at thinking thing up, such as cataclysmic plate tectonics, but once you start crunching numbers and looking at the observable evidence, their ideas just dissolve away, a bit like creationist input on this thread.

Below is a diagram of a ophiolite complex which is basically the structure of oceanic crust; I suppose the main thing to note is that all oceanic crust (oldest to youngest) has this structure, including most importantly new oceanic crust forming today.

So there was never catastrophic plate tectonics; all the oceanic crust was formed by the same mechanisms at work today.




Quote from HERE


Ophiolite complexes (Fig1) are a suite of rocks that form at spreading centers, or divergent plate boundaries. As the plates move away from each other, upwelling magma makes its way up through the fracture in the oceanic crust, and forms several different types of rock along the way. At the bottom, (about 21.75 miles below the surface of the Earth) is the lowest and ultramafic layer (See Fig2), comprised of the densest, mantle material. Overlying the ultramafics, and still below the Moho (the boundary between the Earth’s crust and mantle), are the gabbros. They can be layered (but is not the case in the Cuesta Ridge Ophiolite) and/or zoned. They range from dunite at the bottom to diorite at the top. These rocks are intrusive in nature, so they exhibit phaneritic (coarsely crystalline) to cumulate (whole crystals that accumulate at the bottom of the chamber due to density) texture. Separating the ultramafics and the next layer is the Moho. Above the mantle is the sheeted dike complex (Fig3). This is comprised of a series of dikes that feed into the fractures. Overlying the sheeted dikes are the pillow basalts. (Figs4 & 5) These are extrusive features that form when the hot magma encounters the cold ocean and cool instantly. They are bulbous in shape and extend laterally as well as vertically. The final layer in an ophiolite complex are the pelagic sediments. This is a sedimentary layer originating from the tests of oceanic organisms. This layer is usually deepwater shale, chert or limestone (Winters).

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

So I think everyone agrees that the rock cycle starts will igneous activity at oceanic ridges and that this is a slow continuous process that forms the structures seen in the diagram in the last post and are found all over the world and of all ages.

To Recap here’s a description of oceanic ridges from HERE


OCEAN RIDGE MAGMATISM

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Magma production at the Earth's mid-ocean ridge system far exceeds that in any other tectonic environment, and this has been so since the early Precambrian. It is the dominant way in which internal heat is dissipated. The structure of a mid-ocean ridge is shown below:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Note how the lithosphere thickens as it moves away from the ridge. Because the Earth's magnetic field oscillates between north and south at intervals of a few hundred thousand (or the odd million) years the basalts erupted then take on the current magnetisation, and so give rise to the seafloor magnetic lineations (patterns shown above) that can be used to date the ocean floor. Melting of pyrolite mantle extracts basaltic liquids to form the ocean crust, leaving a residue of harzburgite (ol+opyx) forming the underlying lithosphere.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The ocean lithosphere suffers extensive hydrothermal alteration at the ridge (see below), but the rocks eventually finish up subducting back into the mantle:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It is because these fluids are released in the Benioff Zone as the slab is subducted that magmas are able to be generated in the mantle wedge above the subduction zone. It is fluid, not friction, which is responsible for active margin magmatism. But it is ridge processes which make it all possible. So we need to look at these.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Why does melting occur? Melting temperatures of most silicate minerals increase with increasing pressures. So temperatures of solid mantle material at depth may be higher than the melting point of mantle near the earth's surface. As hot deep mantle rises beneath spreading ridges it will, as pressure falls, rise above its solidus, and begin melting.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The simplified situation is as follows:[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]As the uprising mantle crosses the geotherm it begins to melt, and as the solidus temperature of mantle falls with decreasing pressure, the temperature of the melt increases relative to this solidus, thus effectively giving higher degress of melting with decompression, as shown. The amount of melt generated will be limited by the latent heat of fusion (which is high for silicates), and as the melting range of mantle peridotite lies between ca. 1100°C and ca. 1700°C, it is likely that most ridge basalts are partial (rather than complete) melts of mantle. The magma may enter a chamber in the ocean crust and begin crystallising, giving the following P-T path:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There is the possibility of superheat (i.e. temperature above the liquidus) if the magma can rise quickly, but it is apparent that most magmas are erupted or emplaced without superheat (a possible exception are ultramafic lavas called komatiites).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Because we haven't yet been able to drill very far down into oceanic crust, the only way we can begin to understand what happens to the basaltic magma as it rises up at the ridge is to look at ophiolite complexes. There are many of these in the Alpine belt, although we are not always sure that these mafic slivers represent true ocean basin crust or whether some (or all) may represent marginal basin crust or the roots of island arcs.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Nonetheless, by putting together information from a number of ophiolite complexes, particularly Troodos on Cyprus, we come up with the following idealised section:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Not every ophiolite has all these components complete, and it is not always for tectonic reasons. Often the gabbro is missing, or the sheeted dykes, and in some cases the dykes may intrude the harzburgite. Of course sheeted dykes can only be formed if there is a continuously extending magma chamber (try doing it without!). So if sheeted dykes are missing it may mean that there has not been such a magma chamber. In fact there is a lot of debate on this issue. Some geophysical studies indicate a possible continuous magma chamber beneath the East Pacific Rise. However, the EPR is a smooth fast-spreading ridge, and maybe there is enough thermal input to keep a continuous magma chamber going. On the other hand in the slow-spreading Atlantic with its central rift valley and irregular topography, there is no direct evidence for a continuous magma chamber. Some workers, including those at Leicester, suggest that with slow-spreading ridges, each eruption may be a distinct event, and that any magma chamber is only short-lived. Some sections of the Atlantic ridge, like the FAMOUS area (south of the Azores) have numerous small volcanic cones, and this is now being recognised all over the Atlantic.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A consequence is that that there may be a variety of magma chamber profiles, with those from fast-spreading ridges having fat "onion" shapes, those from rather slower-spreading ridges having "leek" shapes. Very slow spreading ridges (e.g. SW Indian Ridge) may just have dykes feeding lavas which directly overly peridotite. There are ophiolites with this profile, where the dykes cut harzburgite tectonite and gabbro is only locally developed. Even with the type Troodos ophiolite, which has a moderatley thick gabbro section, geochemical studies have shown that the gabbros are in fact a compound of a number of small bodies.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Transform Fault Effects

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It has long been known that the ocean crust is much thinner in the vicinity of oceanic transform faults. Also that a greater variety of rock types can be drilled or dredged in the vicinity of transforms, and that there is usually a significant topographic difference between the two sides of a transform fault (esp. the larger ones).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The latter effect arises because the ocean crust sinks as much as 3 km over the first 50 m.y. of its existence. So the greater the age difference of adjacent bits of ocean crust across a transform, then the greater the height of the transform wall. Obviously if the wall is 1 km high, then a large amount of rubble will fall down onto the lower plate, and deeper parts will become exposed. Moreover as the transform fault moves, the movement can deform the basalts into hornblende schists.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The thinner crust arises from the cold-wall effect, i.e. that the mantle rising up adjacent to the transform fault are actually in contact with older, and therefore cooler, oceanic crust on the other side. Cooler conditions give less melt and therefore thinner crust. Thinner crust also means there is more likelihood of mantle being exposed in the transform wall, again increasing the variety of rock types.[/FONT]

Perhaps if all agree we can move on to alteration of oceanic crust as the next step in the rock cycles. If some do not agree, I am more than willing to examine any evidence they may have to the contrary.

SORRY SOME IMAGES REMOVED, ALL CAN BE SEEN AT THE LINK GIVEN

 

[RobertByers]

Chordateslegacy
what to expect is not to be expected. It is unknown how and how much need of the earth was needed to separate the landmass.
In all literature it is a constant thing that melting lave poured into other rock forms showing great chaos. It is here on the shield. Metamorphic rock all comes from the flood year . The grat volcanos, now gone, came from the flood year.
The evidence of earth is exactly what creationist models expect. Great depths of rock overturned, transformed, pulverized by the great undergound actions of a moving land mass.
The evidence for speedy movement is the result. it should be the first conclusion.
Your melt criticisms is beyond my intimate knowledge yet again your presuming movement would be a certain way. The earth is great in its underlying power. We see the results and know the history, the bible, and can fit the pieces together.
Modern geology as others said here is just guessing about how plates move. They have to presume slowness. they can't and don't test their ideas.
It is a big subject. However the result imply the means. Fast sudden movement in a great event. You have to do the work to show it was a slow process.
Likewise sedimentary rock shows a sudden great collections of sediment made into rock suddenly. Life in the pileup included.

I've been reading Hutton lately and its so clear that they rejected a young earth just because they couldn't see how rocks could be folded deep down and so . No faith and no creative imagination and then research to figure the obvious thing to the eyes. Great sudden shakeups.
Thank goodness continental drift(we say redeye) came by to give creationism a little help.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Modern geology as others said here is just guessing about how plates move. They have to presume slowness. they can't and don't test their ideas.
It is a big subject. However the result imply the means. Fast sudden movement in a great event. You have to do the work to show it was a slow process.

You're not listening.

"Fast sudden movement" like the kind you're proposing would've flash-fried this planet.

How much work do you expect us to do to show that the planet was not, in fact, flash-fried?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Chordateslegacy
what to expect is not to be expected. It is unknown how and how much need of the earth was needed to separate the landmass.
In all literature it is a constant thing that melting lave poured into other rock forms showing great chaos. It is here on the shield. Metamorphic rock all comes from the flood year . The grat volcanos, now gone, came from the flood year.

It is quite easy to show that if "the great volcanoes, especially those that formed all the large igneous provinces on earth such as the Deccan Traps, siberian traps, on land and undersea flows such as the Ontong Java LIP had flowed out during 1 year the gases released would have sterilzed the oceans and poisoned the atmosphere. If you add all the gases and heat released by the formation of new sea floor due to the supposed rapid continental drift (CPT) you end up with an atmosphere of acidic, poisonous high pressure steam. Glenn Morton has some calculations here. I did these myself and extended it to CPT when I was debating this subject with TrueCreation. I'll see if I can dig it up.

The evidence of earth is exactly what creationist models expect. Great depths of rock overturned, transformed, pulverized by the great undergound actions of a moving land mass.

The evidence of the earth is exactly what we expect from periods of slow deposition interspersed with occasional rapid events. It is absolutely clear that many rock strata were deposited, buried, lithified and then subjected to heat and stress. I have addressed creationist bogus claims about rock folding in my thread on Bent Strata. Glenn Morton has more than a dozen articles on his Hompage on why geology shows slow deposition. As Chordtest legacy has shown the composition of rocks on the ocean floor does not match with what would be expected from CPT and Joe Meert has shown that the Ocean Depth Profiles do not match with CPT

The evidence for speedy movement is the result. it should be the first conclusion.

Evidence for speedy movement would be a poisonous atmosphere of high pressure steam and no life on earth.

Your melt criticisms is beyond my intimate knowledge, yet again your presuming movement would be a certain way. The earth is great in its underlying power. We see the results and know the history, the bible, and can fit the pieces together.

This makes no sense. Everything you comment on seems to be beyond your knowledge. This seems to be why you can make such absurd claims on thread after thread.

Modern geology as others said here is just guessing about how plates move. They have to presume slowness. they can't and don't test their ideas.

Actually we can measure plate movement and radiometric dating sea floor rocks shows that rates have been approximately the same as those measured today for hundreds of millions of years.

It is a big subject. However the result imply the means. Fast sudden movement in a great event. You have to do the work to show it was a slow process.

The work has been done.

Likewise sedimentary rock shows a sudden great collections of sediment made into rock suddenly. Life in the pileup included.

What? There have been some cases of rapid accumulation of sediment at least on a geologic time scale, but features such animal burrows, insect nests, varves, dessication cracks, evaporites and countless others show long periods of slow deposition.

I've been reading Hutton lately and its so clear that they rejected a young earth just because they couldn't see how rocks could be folded deep down and so .

The young earth and global flood were rejected for many good reasons and all the data collected since show this was the correct conclusion. Again I suggest you read History of the Collapse of Flood Geology and a Young Earth.

No faith and no creative imagination and then research to figure the obvious thing to the eyes. Great sudden shakeups.
Thank goodness continental drift(we say redeye) came by to give creationism a little help.

Unfortunately for you, Young Earth Creationism is beyond help.