Evidence for God from Science

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:Jbuza wrote
I like the explanations about oscillation dampening.
Bgood wrote
Why do you like certain explanations over others? Do you really understand them?

IT sounds pretty, and look at the shiny words they used. LOL I like the explanation of oscillation dampening because I feel that it explains and predicts observations. IT proposes that continental drift creates disturbances in the magma, shock waves set up when the continents stopped. IT explains some observations of “drift” in the midwest that couldn't be explained by uniform drift. IT proposes that the plates are shifting about on a turbulent layer of magma. I think it works.

Wait, drift creates disturbances which in turn causes drift? Is it some sort of perpetual motion device?

Jbuza wrote:--------------
Bgood Wrote
Why would this not be documented in the bible? A global cataclysm after a global flood seems noteworthy.
Not too sure. IT is clear that the Bible doesn't include most of the events of the time span it covers.

How convenient, so what is your evidence for this great slide other than speculation?

Jbuza wrote:-----------------
Bgood
Also what problems do you have with the slower drift proposed by mainstream science besides the fact that it took such a long time.
I don't believe it demonstrates the force required for mountain building.

Based on what?

Jbuza wrote:It is largely based upon uniform geology. And of course the one you are asking me to omit.

Then, please explain the rift formation in the atlantic ocean in terms of your opposing theory.

Jbuza wrote:----------------
Bgood
You're correct friction is independent of the velocity, however if as the author asserted that friction alone caused the slowdown of the plates then,
a.)Where did all this heat go?
b.)Why does it continue to drift?
First as I mentioned before convection currents in the magma could be creating this force all the time, so it may not be extra. The friction would do mechanical work on both surfaces perhaps create some oscillations within the lithosphere, but yes there is heat. IT would dissipate.

And this could not take place gradually as it does now?

Jbuza wrote:Oscillation dampening causes the plates to continue to shift
------------------
Bgood
Are you proposing that the diameter of the Earth has inflated?

No I don't think it has. Doesn't seem possible for that to happen without a change in gravity. I think that for every sinking or displacement of mantel there must be a corresponding eruption or uplift. It could be that areas opened between the plates. There appears to be some disagreement as to the actual workings of continental drift.

You seem to be contradicting yourself, stating earlier that the continents may not have moved at all. This still doesn't explain the mid ocean rift.

Jbuza wrote:---------------
Bgood
The heat generated by the Earth and from the Sun is at an Equilibrium now. Do you think that an asteroid impact would have generated heat far in excess of what we receive now?

IT would definitely add heat to the system no question about that. But to a certain extent the hotter the oceans and the atmosphere become the quicker they are going to cool.
-----------------

And you think such an event would be survivable?
Again beyond speculation where is the empirical evidence for this?

sigh.

Bgood wrote
Wait, drift creates disturbances which in turn causes drift? Is it some sort of perpetual motion device?

No I think that oscillation dampening proposes that there would be some residual energy that would cause the plates to continue to move about some even though they have lost 99% of their lateral motion.
--------------------
How convenient, so what is your evidence for this great slide other than speculation?

I tire of this nonsense. Perhaps if you still are curious you can go reread some of this thread.
--------------------
Based on what?

Physics and Newtonian mechanics.
--------------------
Then, please explain the rift formation in the atlantic ocean in terms of your opposing theory.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... c&start=15
--------------------
And this could not take place gradually as it does now?

No, it couldn't, beyond speculation where is the empirical evidence for this.
--------------------
And you think such an event would be survivable?
Again beyond speculation where is the empirical evidence for this?

I think that an asteroid impact could be survivable yes. There is evidence of asteroid impacts. I am not convinced this is the mechanism.
--------------------

http://www.thule.org/crustaluplift/

These people also propse a six hour mechanism. I haven't finished reading it yet. I will post what I feel is the pertinent excerpt.



Our model of the Mars-Earth Wars extends geographical techniques to astronomical scenes, well beyond the Earth's surface, including to the orbit and to the surface of Mars. Figure I illustrates our model in astronomy.

1. Mass of Mars. Mars is 11 percent of Earth's mass.

2. Geometry and Harmony. In our model, Mars, when close, always made an ''inside flyby,'' that is, it followed a path between the Earth and the Sun . The Moon was always at or near full, and it was away from the path of Mars. (Inside flybys by an outer planet, in celestial mechanics, result in orbit warps for both planets that tend to be mutually self perpetuating .)

3. Relative velocity. Mars approached and passed the Earth-Moon system at a velocity of 28,000 mph. (This means that flyby upthrusts and general damage occurred in a timeframe of under 250 minutes, not tens of millions of years.)

4. Orbit crossroads placed in space. Each flyby distance of Mars varied, because the planets Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune warped the orbit of Mars in various directions and amounts from flyby to flyby. Thus, these three planets altered the place in space where the two orbits intersected. They could alter the orbit crossing place and the flyby distance by an estimated 50,000 to 60,000 miles.

5. Resonance slot. In the Catastrophic Era, the Earth had a 92.25-million mile orbit radius, not today's 93.0 million miles. (This "slot" in space puts the Earth's orbit in a 12:1 orbit timing resonance with Jupiter and a 30:1 resonance with Saturn, also 85:1 with Uranus. This explains the 360 day (not 365 day) ancient year and ancient calendar; 360 day calendars were the norm in ancient societies.

6. Orbit Hot Spot. The closest point in a planet's orbit to the Sun is its "perihelion'' (Greek, peri = near, helios = Sun). Mars had a perihelion of 66 million miles in our model, and thus its perihelion was well inside Venus' orbit space.

7. Orbit Cold Spot. The remotest point in a planet's orbit to the Sun is its ''aphelion"
(Greek, ap = far from). Mars had a 225-million mile aphelion and when there, Mars penetrated well into the region of asteroids.

8. Paired Orbit intersections. Since the orbits of Mars and the Earth are, and were, coplanar, there were two orbit intersection locations, not one. One orbit enossroads was October 24 and the other was March 21, the historic Passover of Judaism. Early Romans of the 5th century B.C. called March 21 their ''tubulustrium" (day of trouble), and they called October 24 their "armilustrium" (day of alarms). The early Hebrews called October 24 "The Day of the Lord,'' very much dreaded, like their Passover.

9. Mars Orbit Period. The orbit of Mars required 720 days, while one orbit of the Earth required 360 days in the Catastrophic Era. In addition, the Moon's orbit at that time was 30 days, not the modern 29.54 days. This means the Moon, too, was in orbital resonance with Mars at 24:1.

10. Alternating Geometries. Close Mars flybys alternated between the ascending intersection (October 24) and the descending (March 20-21) crossroads. Close flybys rocked back and forth in 108-year cycles, like a rocking chair. This has several implications, one of which is that Mars, in sequential flybys, tortured the Earth's Eastern and Western Hemispheres alternately.

I guess I have to reread that and think about it some

Jbuza wrote: 5. Resonance slot. In the Catastrophic Era, the Earth had a 92.25-million mile orbit radius, not today's 93.0 million miles. (This "slot" in space puts the Earth's orbit in a 12:1 orbit timing resonance with Jupiter and a 30:1 resonance with Saturn, also 85:1 with Uranus. This explains the 360 day (not 365 day) ancient year and ancient calendar; 360 day calendars were the norm in ancient societies.

I skimmed this, which is IMHO a bit more time than it deserves.
1) The above smacks of numerology. Why should these parameters have such nice integral values ? And what ancient calendars had 360 days ?

http://www.touregypt.net/magazine/mag03012001/magf1.htm wrote:This was the start of the world's first calendar, invented over 5000 years ago.... But, as in our times, this calendar was not accurate enough for the central administration; taxes and other things have to be paid on time. So in the Old Kingdom, a standard calendar with 12 months of 30 days each was introduced. Each month was divided into decades of 10 days.
Because this public calendar with 360 days was too short to coordinate with the agricultural and lunar calendar, five extra days called the heriu renpet were added at the end of the year and celebrated with religious festivities.

2) When did all this close contact end and the current orbits of Mars et al. begin ? I couldn't find any reference to that. And planets less than 15,000 miles apart ? The gravitational effects would have been much worse than described, according to current scientists.

sandy_mcd wrote:I skimmed this, which is IMHO a bit more time than it deserves.

I don't know what to make of it either.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:The heat generated = the kinetic energy of the continents as it drags across the surface of the Earth.

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 * velocity^2 * mass

Let's look at these two equations.

KE = 1/2 * velocity^2 * mass

Here is a rough calculation.
From the Russian website http://www.cnt.ru/users/chas/tectonic.htm, "both South America and Africa went about d» 2,300,000 meters" in 6 hours. Let's just consider an average speed, which would be 106 meters/s (~240 mph).
The mass of the earth is about 5.97 x 10^24 kg http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=& ... tnG=Search. The continental crust is about 0.374% of the earth's mass (the oceanic crust, not considered here is about another 0.099%) http://www.etsimo.uniovi.es/solar/eng/earthint.htm, so the mass of the continental crust is 0.00374 x 5.97x10^24 or 2.23x10^22 kg. Let's assume that all the continents moved about the same amount.
Then the kinetic energy is 1/2 x (106 m/s)^2 x 2.23x10^22 kg = 1.25x10^26 m^2/s^2xkg or 1.25x10^26 Joules of energy.

The volume of the oceans is about 1.37x10^9 km^3, which, since 1 km = 100,000 cm, is 1.37x10^24 cm^3 http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/SyedQadri.shtml. For 1 g of water (about 1 cm^3), it takes ~4 J to heat it one degree C and another 2260 J to convert water at 100C to steam at 100C. If the average temperature of the ocean is 5 degrees C, it would take (100-5)x4 + 2260 = 2640 J to vaporize 1 g of water http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cchieh ... ating.html. So to vaporize the oceans would take 2640 J/g x 1.37x10^24g = 3.62x10^27 J.
The kinetic energy (from the average speed calculation, which means it is a bit low) is 1.25x10^26 J, so we are about a factor of 28 short, so we could only vaporize about 3.5% of the oceans. Still, pretty impressive.
[Any checks of the arithmetic or data involved would be appreciated.]

sandy_mcd wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:The heat generated = the kinetic energy of the continents as it drags across the surface of the Earth.

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 * velocity^2 * mass

Let's look at these two equations.

KE = 1/2 * velocity^2 * mass

Here is a rough calculation.
From the Russian website http://www.cnt.ru/users/chas/tectonic.htm, "both South America and Africa went about d» 2,300,000 meters" in 6 hours. Let's just consider an average speed, which would be 106 meters/s (~240 mph).
The mass of the earth is about 5.97 x 10^24 kg http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=& ... tnG=Search. The continental crust is about 0.374% of the earth's mass (the oceanic crust, not considered here is about another 0.099%) http://www.etsimo.uniovi.es/solar/eng/earthint.htm, so the mass of the continental crust is 0.00374 x 5.97x10^24 or 2.23x10^22 kg. Let's assume that all the continents moved about the same amount.
Then the kinetic energy is 1/2 x (106 m/s)^2 x 2.23x10^22 kg = 1.25x10^26 m^2/s^2xkg or 1.25x10^26 Joules of energy.

The volume of the oceans is about 1.37x10^9 km^3, which, since 1 km = 100,000 cm, is 1.37x10^24 cm^3 http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/SyedQadri.shtml. For 1 g of water (about 1 cm^3), it takes ~4 J to heat it one degree C and another 2260 J to convert water at 100C to steam at 100C. If the average temperature of the ocean is 5 degrees C, it would take (100-5)x4 + 2260 = 2640 J to vaporize 1 g of water http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cchieh ... ating.html. So to vaporize the oceans would take 2640 J/g x 1.37x10^24g = 3.62x10^27 J.
The kinetic energy (from the average speed calculation, which means it is a bit low) is 1.25x10^26 J, so we are about a factor of 28 short, so we could only vaporize about 3.5% of the oceans. Still, pretty impressive.
[Any checks of the arithmetic or data involved would be appreciated.]

hmmm. Interesting. Some heat would be lost by evaporation. The heat energy is not equal to kinetic energy. Some of the Kinetic energy is transfered to mechanical work. I would say it may have warmed the oceans, and we know that can spawn some large hurricanes and effect global weather.

The mechanism is still unclear, and I wonder if these frictional forces don't exist all the time because of currents in the magma. Even a very slow circulation of the magma, or very slow drift is likely to result in the same heat, perhaps even more. The excess energy from the velocity may have been transfered into mountian formation.

If the center of the movement was Israel, and as suggested by some of the authors the magnetic pole was through the center of the movement, one can suggest a possible mechanism for the supply of force necessary to start the continents drifting. Figure 52 indicates that if the pole was through or near Israel, the earth would be spinning as indicated by the spiral lines. The earth would be spinning in its solar orbit, but the direction of spin is dependant upon which pole is being observed. It is assumed for this discussion that the earth is being observed from a position above the north pole. If the pole shifted to the north, the force would cause the super continent to break, possibly as shown in Figure 53. The continents would continue to drift as shown in Figure 54.

The leading edge of the continent's movement usually results in the development of ocean trenches, as discussed in Chapter 3, or mountain ranges. This can be seen from the physical world maps and has occurred on every continent. The eastern coast of Australia shows such a mountain buildup on its leading edge of movement, Figure 58.

The Indonesian Islands maps indicate both the development of ocean trenches and mountains on their leading edges. The leading edges of the continents in the Pacific, Figure 59, also show both ocean trenches and mountains on their leading edge.

The mountain build-up is not restricted to the leading edge of the continents movement, but can occur within the body of the continent.

All of these stressed areas lie on spiralic lines from the near Mideast or Israel.

Italy as a whole, is moving toward the southeast, but the tip of the boot is turning toward the northwest and the northern part of Italy is pushing north resulting in the Alps. In effect, Italy is trying to spin. This spin is similar to an eddy current in continuum flow environments. If one drags a stick through a body of water, small circular eddy currents can be observed behind the stick's movement. These same phenomena appear to be occurring in Italy's movement.
However, Korea and the Caribbean are rotating counter clockwise while Italy is rotating in a clockwise manner. This type of movement is typical of disturbances within continuum flow environments.
If the pole shifted to the north, then there would be a force directed to the south of almost equal strength; but the force to the south would create an almost equal force to the north. This interplay of forces would create an oscillating force that was continually decreasing.
[THESE SNIPS WOULD APPEAR TO COINCIDE WITH OSCILLATION DAMPENING]

It would be similar to dropping an object in the center of a vat of water; the ripples caused by the object hitting the water would move away from the center in circular rings. It should be the same on a sphere. Figure 72 displays a polar view of the earth's surface with the center at the southern tip of Africa as shown in a Scientific American article. The firelines are shown in red. If one moves the center of the projection to Israel, the firelines in the southeast are pulled toward the center and the firelines make an almost perfect circle. This would be in keeping with the laws of physics and reflect all of the reported data






http://www.jpdawson.com/pelgnet/pelchap6/Chap6.html

sandy_mcd wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:The heat generated = the kinetic energy of the continents as it drags across the surface of the Earth.

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 * velocity^2 * mass

Let's look at these two equations.

KE = 1/2 * velocity^2 * mass

Here is a rough calculation.
From the Russian website http://www.cnt.ru/users/chas/tectonic.htm, "both South America and Africa went about d» 2,300,000 meters" in 6 hours. Let's just consider an average speed, which would be 106 meters/s (~240 mph).
The mass of the earth is about 5.97 x 10^24 kg http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=& ... tnG=Search. The continental crust is about 0.374% of the earth's mass (the oceanic crust, not considered here is about another 0.099%) http://www.etsimo.uniovi.es/solar/eng/earthint.htm, so the mass of the continental crust is 0.00374 x 5.97x10^24 or 2.23x10^22 kg. Let's assume that all the continents moved about the same amount.
Then the kinetic energy is 1/2 x (106 m/s)^2 x 2.23x10^22 kg = 1.25x10^26 m^2/s^2xkg or 1.25x10^26 Joules of energy.

The volume of the oceans is about 1.37x10^9 km^3, which, since 1 km = 100,000 cm, is 1.37x10^24 cm^3 http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/SyedQadri.shtml. For 1 g of water (about 1 cm^3), it takes ~4 J to heat it one degree C and another 2260 J to convert water at 100C to steam at 100C. If the average temperature of the ocean is 5 degrees C, it would take (100-5)x4 + 2260 = 2640 J to vaporize 1 g of water http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cchieh ... ating.html. So to vaporize the oceans would take 2640 J/g x 1.37x10^24g = 3.62x10^27 J.
The kinetic energy (from the average speed calculation, which means it is a bit low) is 1.25x10^26 J, so we are about a factor of 28 short, so we could only vaporize about 3.5% of the oceans. Still, pretty impressive.
[Any checks of the arithmetic or data involved would be appreciated.]

=)
Nicely done!
So now what we have is that if there were any water in the young Atlantic it would have been boiled away. The water must have resulted from elsewhere.

If the entire planet was covered at the time with water, than Jbuza's idea that pangaea allowed animals to return would be invalid.

So now we can finally move on, Thanks Sandy.

Jbuza,
Why would there then be organisms found in the Atlantic which do not exist in the Pacific?
If the Atlantic Ocean did not exist after the flood wouldn't it have been stocked by marine organisms from elsewhere?

Also what is the cause of the striping? Why would there be alternating bands of magnetite some which are oriented in todays north-south magnetic field and others which are reversed?

Shouldn't all of the magma have erupted to form the seafloor at roughly the same time?

Bgood Wrote
So now what we have is that if there were any water in the young Atlantic it would have been boiled away. The water must have resulted from elsewhere.


Incorrect. IT started with the assumption that all the kinetic energy would be transferred to heat and that is faulty. IT also proposes that all the heat created is extra heat and that frictional forces within the lithosphere are not a natural phenomenon outside of continental drift. Further if I accept that all the kinetic energy was transferred to heat which is silly the water that this demonstrates would evaporate would simply carry away a great deal of this heat and at some point the in-flowing water would cease to evaporate.
--------------
Bgood Wrote
If the entire planet was covered at the time with water, than Jbuza's idea that pangaea allowed animals to return would be invalid.


I don't believe you have demonstrated that the entire planet was covered during the break up of pangea. IF it had been perhaps the force would have been transferred to the one large ocean instead of to the pangea.
--------------
Jbuza,
Why would there then be organisms found in the Atlantic which do not exist in the Pacific?
If the Atlantic Ocean did not exist after the flood wouldn't it have been stocked by marine organisms from elsewhere?


I'm quite certain the organisms in the oceans can swim to whatever environment is most comfortable for them. For instance you do not find the great white shark living at the North Pole shivering. It is quite possible that when the Americas drifted west that some organisms became trapped to the west of the Americas and were unable to withstand the temperatures that would be encountered migrating around the southern tip of South America. Which organisms are you talking about?
----------------
Bgood Wrote
Also what is the cause of the striping? Why would there be alternating bands of magnetite some which are oriented in todays north-south magnetic field and others which are reversed?

Well it has been hypothesized that gravitational forces could have caused the pangea to break apart. I think it could indicate that there have been periods of fluctuation in the magnetic field. Not to sure I will have to read more about it.
---------------
Shouldn't all of the magma have erupted to form the seafloor at roughly the same time?

I think the basalt would have hardened at about the same time as the continent moved to expose them. The magma eruptions have clearly been continuing since the continents came to their present locations. I'm really not to sure because the vast majority of the information claims to have answers, and it is hard to find information that actually demonstrates these processes.
---------------

With all the erosion and on all the various continents and rivers depositing deltas like the ones at Ephesus, should the continents not, over a 200+ million year period, loose the shape of their ancient coastlines? Currently, according to the US Army Corp of Engineers, the United States coastlines are in serious danger. The Louisiana coastline is being lost at a rate of at least 25sq. miles per year. Both the eastern and western United States are being eroded at rates fast enough to warrant millions of dollars spent on coastal erosion prevention at an annual cost of around $500 million. Florida alone spends over 8 million dollars annually on coastal erosion prevention.11 In just over 50 years, some of the coastlines in Washington State have regressed over 300 meters.12 The coastline of Texas is being eroded at a rate of between 1 and 50 feet per year depending on location.13 At the Eastern side of the continent, the landmark lighthouse at Cape Hatteras, built more than 1500 meters (5000 feet) inland in 1879, was threatened with collapse because the coastline had been eroded to such an extent that the lighthouse had to be moved some 1,600 feet inland (in 1999) to save it. 89 At this particular point the sea has been moving in at a rate of a mile in 150 years, (once around the earth in less than four million years). The same is true for the eastern and western coastal countries of Africa who depend on the stability of their coasts for tourism. Japan is spending billions of dollars to preserve its coasts from erosion. Every coastal country in the world is worried about erosion.


So, knowing this, let us be very conservative and say that an average coastline changes only one centimeter per year. This would not be enough erosion to worry anyone right? However, how much change would that be in 200 million years? The change would be two thousand kilometers (1,200 miles) . . . Enough to erode (or deposit) half way through the United States! This does not appear to be the case though. The coastlines of the various continents still match up very well - not to mention the fact that the continents themselves have not been washed away within this time. I mean, judging by the current rate of erosion, Louisiana would have been subjected to 5 billion square miles of erosion/deposition in 200 million years. That is more than 300 times the size of the entire North American Continent (15 million square miles)! That is actually fifteen times more land than the entire surface area of the Earth itself… to include that covered by water (317 million square miles)!


Perhaps one of the more easily discernable problems is one that involves the maintenance of fit of the continents over the course of 200+ million years of drift since Pangea. Consider that over relatively short time periods, erosion, deposition, and sedimentary river delta deposits change edges of landmasses significantly. For example, three hundred years before Christ, Ephesus was a seaport city on the coast of the Aegean Sea in Asia Minor. Within only 800 years, the city was no longer a port city, but an inland city. The historian Pliney said that, “In ancient times the sea used to wash up to the temple of Diana” [in Ephesus]. The reason for this regression of the sea is that the relatively small rivers of Cayster and Meander run near the city. Over the years they deposited so much sediment that the land extended some several miles in a relatively short time. Today Ephesus is located about five miles inland.

Now, I am not saying that rates of erosion do not fluctuate and change, but it seems fairly obvious that with even minimal amounts of continental erosion, the continents of today would not match up so easily if they really had separated from each other over 200 million years ago. The evidence does not appear to fit the theory - not even close. An extremely rapid continental drift in the recent past seems much more likely.


Geologic layering and coal samples are very similar at the “separation zones” of the various continents.

In fact, many geologists now think that the small upper layer mantle convection currents that do exist are the result of plate motion rather than its cause.32 [osscilation dampening]

http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html

Paleomagnetism

But what about paleomagnetism? Most geologist believe that paleomagnetism confirms the predictions of plate tectonic theory. Paleomagnetism is a study of the magnetic properties of the earth's crust. What is especially interesting is that along the mid-oceanic ridges, there is a parallel "zebra-striped pattern" of alternating magnetic stripes or bands where one strip is oriented in one direction while the strip next to it is oriented in a different or even reversed direction. The theory is that as these rocks cooled during formation, the magnetic polarity of the Earth at that time was preserved in the rock like a taperecording. After the polarity was established in the hardened rock, reversals in the Earth's polarity would not change the polarity in the solid rock. Thus, only in newly forming or liquid rock would the molecules be able to line up with the current polarity of the Earth. In this way, magnetically oriented bands of rock would be formed where the oldest bands are farthest away from the mid-oceananic ridge where new crust formation is thought to occur along a spreading fault. The pattern of these lines seems to outline the movements of various plates quite well...
However, there seem to be just a few problems with paleomagnetism. One would think that as the sea-floor spread out from the ridge that the alternating "normal" and "reversed" magnetic bands would extend vertically all the way through the crust. Vertically drilled cores have shown that this is simply not the case. The surface pattern of alternating bands of magnetic polarity is not preserved as neatly in the rocks below the surface. Interestingly enough, the magnetic polarity changes back and forth as one moves down the core samples. This finding seems to disprove the theory that the oceanic crust was magnetized entirely as it spread laterally from the magmatic center.32 Some scientists are even suggesting that magnetic reversals were formed very rapidly.38
Consider also the theory that the oceanic plates must be relatively "young" as compared to the continental shelves. Since the oceanic crust is continually made by the mid-ocean ridges and then moves outwards to be subducted under other plates, the youngest rocks will be closest to the ridges and the oldest will be those rocks farthest from the ridges. The problem is that "shallow-water deposits ranging in age from mid-Jurassic to Miocene, as well as igneous rocks showing evidence of subaerial weathering, were found in 149 of the first 493 boreholes drilled in the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific Oceans. These shallow-water deposits are now found at depths ranging from 1 to 7 km, demonstrating that many parts of the present ocean floor were once shallow seas, shallow marshes, or land areas. From a study of 402 oceanic boreholes in which shallow-water or relatively shallow-water sediments were found, Ruditch (1990) concluded that there is no systematic correlation between the age of shallow-water accumulations and their distance from the axes of the midoceanic ridges, thereby disproving the seafloor-spreading model... There is evidence that the midocean ridge system was shallow or partially emergent in Cretaceous to Early Tertiary time. For instance, in the Atlantic subaerial deposits have been found on the North Brazilian Ridge, near the Romanche and Vema fracture zones adjacent to equatorial sectors of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, on the crest of the Reykjanes Ridge, and in the Faeroe-Shetland region... Geological, geophysical, and dredging data provide strong evidence for the presence of Precambrian and younger continental crust under the deep abyssal plains of the present northwest Pacific. Most of this region was either subaerially exposed or very shallow sea during the Paleozoic to Early Mesozoic, and first became deep sea about the end of the Jurassic." 32
There are many other problems detailed by Pratt as to why the current theory of plate tectonics may in fact be fatally flawed. A link to his paper can be found below for those who are interested.

http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/tecto.htm

Jbuza wrote:Bgood Wrote
So now what we have is that if there were any water in the young Atlantic it would have been boiled away. The water must have resulted from elsewhere.

Incorrect. IT started with the assumption that all the kinetic energy would be transferred to heat and that is faulty. IT also proposes that all the heat created is extra heat and that frictional forces within the lithosphere are not a natural phenomenon outside of continental drift. Further if I accept that all the kinetic energy was transferred to heat which is silly the water that this demonstrates would evaporate would simply carry away a great deal of this heat and at some point the in-flowing water would cease to evaporate.

In any case the water in the Atlantic did not originate there, correct? Any life found in the atlantic would have to have come from other sources.
--------------

Jbuza wrote:Bgood Wrote
If the entire planet was covered at the time with water, than Jbuza's idea that pangaea allowed animals to return would be invalid.

I don't believe you have demonstrated that the entire planet was covered during the break up of pangea. IF it had been perhaps the force would have been transferred to the one large ocean instead of to the pangea.

I was only stressing that the organisms in the atlantic could not have originated there.
--------------

Jbuza wrote:Jbuza,
Why would there then be organisms found in the Atlantic which do not exist in the Pacific?
If the Atlantic Ocean did not exist after the flood wouldn't it have been stocked by marine organisms from elsewhere?

I'm quite certain the organisms in the oceans can swim to whatever environment is most comfortable for them. For instance you do not find the great white shark living at the North Pole shivering. It is quite possible that when the Americas drifted west that some organisms became trapped to the west of the Americas and were unable to withstand the temperatures that would be encountered migrating around the southern tip of South America. Which organisms are you talking about?

Is it possible for carribean coral species to have reached the new atlantic ocean?
What about the species of vent creatures? They must have been created before the cataclysm, where did they come from?

Jbuza wrote: ----------------
Bgood Wrote
Also what is the cause of the striping? Why would there be alternating bands of magnetite some which are oriented in todays north-south magnetic field and others which are reversed?

Well it has been hypothesized that gravitational forces could have caused the pangea to break apart. I think it could indicate that there have been periods of fluctuation in the magnetic field. Not to sure I will have to read more about it.
---------------
Shouldn't all of the magma have erupted to form the seafloor at roughly the same time?

I think the basalt would have hardened at about the same time as the continent moved to expose them.

But this occured in a span of six hours?

Jbuza wrote:The magma eruptions have clearly been continuing since the continents came to their present locations. I'm really not to sure because the vast majority of the information claims to have answers, and it is hard to find information that actually demonstrates these processes.
---------------

I thought the whole point was that current forces could not have caused the continents to drift?
Yet they do?

Exactly how much of the Atlantic Ocean is due to the innitial event?

Jbuza wrote:With all the erosion and on all the various continents and rivers depositing deltas like the ones at Ephesus, should the continents not, over a 200+ million year period, loose the shape of their ancient coastlines? Currently, according to the US Army Corp of Engineers, the United States coastlines are in serious danger. The Louisiana coastline is being lost at a rate of at least 25sq. miles per year.

1) Actually it is the edges of the continental shelves which match up better than the coastlines. //www.earthscape.org/l2/wil01/wil01c.html ... coastlines


[Note added in edit. Weird - I inserted the above picture link to //www.earthscape.org/l2/wil01/wil01_4_3.gif and sometimes it shows up and sometimes a logon for //www.earthscape.org shows up. Anybody know why ?]



2) Therefore the Mississippi river delta at the bottom of Louisiana doesn't really count. The erosion there is also a special case. In the early 1900's, the river mouth was channelized with jetties by Eads to make shipping easier and levees were built to protect New Orleans and other communities. So the land was not replenished by annual floods anymore; most of the tons of sediment went straight out to the much deeper ocean. On top of that, channels were cut in the marshlands, e.g. by oil and gas exploration companies, which allowed saltier water to intrude, killing the plant life which held the soil together. As a direct result, Hurricane Katrina caused much more damage than it would have in the past since much of the intervening marshlands which would have dampened the storm's intensity have disappeared.