Re: evidences against subduction theory
- From: Jo Schaper <jospamnotschaper34@5socket78dot9net>
- Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 10:43:32 -0500
George wrote:
"Jo Schaper" <jospamnotschaper34@5socket78dot9net> wrote in message news:138m7qg38a94d30@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNicolas Krebs wrote:I have read that some people stay in the before-1970-geology, and do not thrust the nowaday plate tectonic geology with subduction. Do they have any strong evidence against the subduction theory ?There is also the possibility that some of the 'before-1970-geology' is correct. Plate tectonics doesn't answer all geological questions, nor was it intended to. As I've noted in this group before, without a hint of crackpottery, if you're stuck in the middle of a long term craton like North America, there's a helluva lot of geology out there which has very little to do with subducting margins (or not).
That is true, but having a lot of geology in the middle of the continent that doesn't have a lot to do with subduction doesn't mean that subduction doesn't occur elsewhere. Of course, it does. Having said that, there is ample evidence that the middle of our continent has seen numerous rift events, and so plate tectonics does have something to say about the geology of the mid-continent as well.
George
I'm a great believer in the directional oscillating pendulum of science. It tends to swing out to the extremes of everything as it moves forward, when reality is rarely on the peak or trough of whatever is the currently fashionable theory.
I want to see the evidence: The structure which is PT has a reasonable body of evidence, whereas EE does not. As far as my own corner of the craton goes, I've heard and read enough contradictory evidence in regards to the New Madrid Fault Zone, its activity or lack thereof, its reasons for existence, its extent, its ancillary structures (or not) its heat values or not, and read enough stuff which proports to explain Yellowstone based on actual data, that its pretty clear to me that what is important here are the data, and the hypotheses and their ramifications, not necessarily the conclusions (which often are wildly divergent, depending on author.)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: evidences against subduction theory
- From: Offbreed
- Re: evidences against subduction theory
- From: Timberwoof
- Re: evidences against subduction theory
- References:
- evidences against subduction theory
- From: Nicolas Krebs
- Re: evidences against subduction theory
- From: Jo Schaper
- Re: evidences against subduction theory
- From: George
- evidences against subduction theory
- Prev by Date: Re: evidences against subduction theory
- Next by Date: Re: evidences against subduction theory
- Previous by thread: Re: evidences against subduction theory
- Next by thread: Re: evidences against subduction theory
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading