Re: Detailed ocenaic floor analysis. What does it really tell us?

On Apr 9, 1:19 pm, firstn...@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Florian) wrote:
George <geo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm not your secretary, Flo.

You make the claim that McCarthy was discredited, you back up your
claim. Period. I won't read the whole google archives just because
you're lazy to tell me when and where this discussion took place.

The paper contains a map and a description of the map. None of the data
that was used to make the map was included in the paper. You know what data
is, right? Charts, graphs, analysis, numbers? He talks about geomagnetic
data but doesn't include that data in the report. So how is anyone
supposed to check the data against his interpretation?

Jeez... Georgie. Are you a scientist?
Do you know what represents the numbers in brackets all over the text of
that paper? We call them REFERENCES. So I suggest you to read these
references in the paper before making dumb remarks like above.



Guess what? These data are in agreement with EE.

You're living in a dream world. EE doesn't even recognize that ancient
oceans existed much less any landmasses older than Pangea.

Then you should update your notes on EE. It is perfectly accepted there
was water on the earth before 200 MA, but not in ocean bassins like we
know them.

EE says that
the earth began expanding 250 million years ago, and they use as evidence
the growth of the atlantic and Pacific oceans.

wrong again. EE says that a particular phase of growth started 200
millions MA ago. This phase corresponds to the spreading of current
seafloors.

They've never once
discussed Rhodinia, not in any paper I've seen.

Of course, rhodinia never existed!
rhodinia is just an attempt by PT theorists to explain data showing that
the pacific was closed. The only issue is that they made a 500 millions
years error.

And they have repeatedly
insisted that there were no ocean basins before 250 million years ago, and
cite as evidence the fact that no ancient oceans exist (ignoring the fact
that there ample evidence of ancient oceans, as I've pointed out dozens of
times).

Absolutly. The oceans bassin as we know them did not exist. But it is
clear that the Earth already expanded by rifting as demonstrated by
the discovery of ophiolites sequences 3.8 BYA old. After all, Ophiolites
are just the products of underwater rifts.

Perhaps you EEers need to get your collective act togethar. According
to most EEers the
expansion didn't start until the Cambrian as proposed by McCarthy and
others.

Which is it? 3.8 billion years ago or 500mya? Whats 3.3 billion years
among friends.
The ancient ophiolite suites represent obducted chunks of ancient
oceanic crust. Which
is one reason they tend to be found embedded in cratons.


The paper you cite shows just such an ancient ocean, and DOESN'T
show all the continents in one solid continuous landmass that circles the
globe.

Another very clever remark. Of course it doesn't! They're workin inside
the PT framework!

They have a much smaller earth starting 250 million years
ago that was one continuous continental crustal landmas (where the water
went if there were no oceans, and where it came from after, they never
explain).

Your lack of knowledge of EE is embarrassing. Water is continuously
feeding the ocean through the hydrothermal vents all along the rifts.
Massive amounts of water were identified in the mantle not too long ago:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/03/0307_0307_waterworld.htm
l

That water exists within stable mineral forms. What you sea coming
out of deep-sea vents has little to do with that.
Hence that is a red heering and holds no promise for EE.

Most of the water
coming form black smokers e.g., is simply recylcled sea-water laden
with sulfides.

Stuart

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: Racial superiority / Intelligent design was Re: OT:Thanksgiving
    ... Receding water would have dragged the biomass back away from ... The lowering of the continents and rising of the ... sounds like something under the oceans was breaking up. ... would not have been enough to form even a small salt dome. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Something for the Fundies...
    ... >> covered by water then (only about 50% of the current land mass was under ... > My understanding is that the oceans preceded the continents. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Stop the Presses: EE is Real!
    ... The increased water flowing into the oceans each year since 1997 is equal to ... Since the last Ice Age, though, the planet has gotten ... Estimated mass change in glaciers outside Antarctica or Greenland, ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: The nonscience of Noahs Ark: Creation society considers the
    ... floodology science, by all means, let's discuss it - by the ... water filling the oceans. ... If there was no water in the oceans at ... than the word for 'sea' in Akkadian or ancient Hebrew? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Fiddling with volatiles
    ... Give one of them slightly less water than Earth, just enough for the oceans ... Would it end up with the same structure continents ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)