Re: The pseudo miracles of Plate tectonics Zealots



brad wrote:

On Aug 19, 8:20�am, auxotectonics_deletethis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(Florian) wrote:
George <Geo...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No response?

Miracle 1: Where does the new matter come from?

What miracle? Observations lead to the unambigous conclusion that there
is accumulation of matter in planets.

Or Plate Techtonics. With laboratories all over the world
able to reproduce pressures equivalent to core pressures;
why do they not see a hint of matter creation?

You're dead right Brad. Not just laboratories, ..but churches too.
All these people, .all over the world, going to church every week,
putting hands together and, ..and... and ..nothing happens. How
come?



Miracle 2: How does it happen that the new matter has the right chemical
and isotopic compositions in the right quantities to be undetectable?
Changes over time in heavier elements might simply be buried deep inside
the earth, but the model also creates water and other volatiles on the
surface in the right quantities and isotopic balances to leave no trace
in the geological record.

If the matter forming the volatile compounds has the same origin, why
would its composition differ over �time? �By the way, since the growth
is inside out, it is not obvious that heavier elements get buried very
deep.


Why do stars have to start with H and He ; and planets can somehow
accrue
heavier elements without resorting to neucleosynthesis ?


Miracle 3: How does it happen that the new matter has not affected
earth's orbit or rotation period? �The added material has increased
earth's moment of inertia, so keeping it rotating at a constant speed
(after allowing for tidal drag) is inexplicable.

It has changed. Tidalites do not allow the determination of absolute
values as it is assumed that the solar system did not evolve at all.
Obviously it did evolved.
That false notion that the solar system barely evolved in the 4.5 Gy is
reminiscent to creationism that advocates an absence of evolution in
lifeforms. Both notions share that same deep religion root and must be
discarded.


Tidalites must exhibit bimodalism . Those particles have a mass and
that mass must obey fundamental mechanical limitations as regards to
the forces acting upon them. Discounting the fact they are extremely
difficult to identify ; those that are known show no deviation from
modern
tidal studies.


Miracle 4: How does it happen that the earth's paleomagnetism is
everywhere consistent with a constant-sized earth? �A smaller earth in
the past would make paleomagnetism directions very much different, if
the earth's magnetic field was roughly the same. �By what incredible
conincidence did the magnetic field adjust to produce data just like one
would find on a constant-sized earth?

False. This has been debunked. See Chudinov chapII for a discussion:


Magnetic particles in ancient rocks show no deviation of mean field
strength
at time of deposition.


<http://books.google.com/books?id=MI4FtNlgnaQC&printsec=frontcover&sig=A
CfU3U2TaXpPB2p8QrnRSspyic83nPp3Gw&source=gbs_similarbooks_r&cad=3_2#PPA3
,M1>

Miracle 5: Why is expansion not occurring on other planets? �Bodies
without atmospheres, notably the Moon and Mercury, don't have erosion to
obscure stretch marks, and the Moon and Mercury show no signs of
deformation for well over a billion years. �Nor is the sun, or the
earth's orbit would be affected.

Planetary growth is universal, but the rate of growth is factually
different and change with time (increasing or decreasing) for each
planets/moons.


Why does a planet grow and a star doesn't ? Same elements.


The true question is: Why is there currently active growth of some
planets/moons (Encelade, Earth, Venus, Io...) and at the same time very
slow growth from other (Moon, Mercury, Mimas...)

Obviously, We won't get a clear answer until we figure out the
mechanism.

To be accepted ... a mechanism is vital ! Why not concentrate on
that ; now you've
proven to yourself growth occurs?



Miracle 6: Why is expansion not seen occurring on Earth? �Modern
instruments are plenty accurate to detect changes in both size and mass,
yet they detect neither.

At our timescale, the growth is only perceptible through coseismic
displacement and deformation of the crust measurable using GPS.
The change in mass is at the limit of detection for satellites. Scalera
has a dicussion about it:

<http://www.earth-prints.org/handle/2122/1066>

But the geological data (age of the ocean floor ) allow to quantify the
growth over the last 200 My with good accuracy.

That's a stretch. You know that relies only on your interpretation.



Miracle 7: Why could overthrusting (subduction) not operate in the past?
We can see that subduction is happening at a fairly constant rate today.
And the expanding earth model includes subduction (they call it
overthrusting), but says that it eats up only tens, or at most hundreds,
of miles of oceanic crust. �The limit makes sense only if overthrusting
started less than about ten million years ago. �Why not earlier?

Before the recent strong oceanization period, growth of the continental
lithosphere accounted for most of the surface growth by progressive
emplacement, through successive eduction/upduction/overthrusting
episods.
So there was eductions during all of Earth's life even if it was less
intense in agrrement with the slower growing rate.


So ancient "eductions" produced only continental crust; whereas,
recent " eductions " produce only oceanic crust ?


Miracle 8: Why is an expanding earth not detectable by paleontologists,
neither as changes in morphology from an increasing gravity, nor as
patterns of biogeography? �Even if expanding earth proponents are not
looking at this issue, other paleontologists are, and they should have
noticed and pointed out patterns which do not match expectations.

False. Paleontologists and biogeographs have data showing that India has
never been completely isolated from Asia, thus refuting the hypothesis
of a thousands km-wide ocean (Tethys) between India and Asia. The data
are compatibe with the existence of an epicontinental sea or a *narrow*
oceanic basin north of India, depending on the periods.


Greywackes in NW india seem to belie that statement. They require a
continental shelf.


Regarding the Pacific, the same conclusion is true. McCarthy presented
biogeographical and geological evidences that the Pacific was a small
enclosed basin:


Why no Mn nodules in Caribbean or Mediterranean ? Why no evaporites in
pelagic
Pacific borholes ?



<http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17279686>

There are other geological evidence that there was a narrow oceanic
basin between Australia/North America/antarctica that existed at least
for 1.5 Gy:

<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/321/5886/235>

Regarding morphologies, the paleoflora (Giant ferns and fungi and non
ligneous plants) and paleofauna (insect size, dinosaur's average size,
early flying vertebrates) provide clues that in addition to higher
oxygen levels, paleo surface gravity was likely lower.


Anyone who has ever raised fish in an aquarium knows that fish, at
least ,
respond to the volume of the container by staying smaller in smaller
enclosures. Put the same fish in larger aquariums and they grow
larger.
Mammoths survived as dwarf species on restricted space of isolated
islands after the rest of the species went extinct. These results
imply
that a smaller paleoenvironment (as EE insists ) would result in
smaller
ancient species giving rise to larger modern species as expansion
created more room. Clearly, this is not the case.


Miracle 9: Why are competent geologists not expounding on the expanding
earth, especially since it was such a hot topic 35 years ago? [...]

For the very same reason that competent geologist were not expounding on
Wegener's continental drift in the 50s, despite it was a hot topic in
the 20s.

Actually EE and Continental Drift were competing theories and many
ingenious
ideas were volunteered to prove EE . No evidence was found.



Miracle 10: What do a small handful of amatuers know that the competent
geologists don't? �

Irrelevant. There are amateurs that advocate the theory, because they
were convinced by the work of scientists: Hildenberg, Carey, Ollier to
name a few.
Scientists worked, are working and will continue the work on that
theory, and it will continue to attract amateurs for the simple reason
that it is by far the best paradigm around in geosciences.

See, these so-called miracles only exist in the mind of a few zealots.

You should quit going to church Ron Yates. That perverts your mind.

Any amateur can read the evidence . They can weigh your
interpretations against any
discipline they like . EE violates too much science to be accepted.

Brad
.

Relevant Pages

  • The pseudo miracles of Plate tectonics Zealots
    ... Miracle 1: Where does the new matter come from? ... the earth, but the model also creates water and other volatiles on the ... Planetary growth is universal, but the rate of growth is factually ... geologists don't? ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: The pseudo miracles of Plate tectonics Zealots
    ... the earth, but the model also creates water and other volatiles on the ... Why do stars have to start with H and He; and planets can somehow ... Planetary growth is universal, but the rate of growth is factually ... geologists don't? ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Where Matter Comes from For Planetary Growth
    ... really the right word but nevertheless a group of geologists and other ... scientists who have long endorsed the notion that the Earth has undergone ... gross expansion or growth. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Where Matter Comes from For Planetary Growth
    ... really the right word but nevertheless a group of geologists and other ... scientists who have long endorsed the notion that the Earth has undergone ... gross expansion or growth. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: And another problem for evolution
    ... These planets should be cooled down by now if the solor system is as ... The earth, too, readiates more heat than it absorbs from the sun. ... In this instance, I was more interested in *your* growth, or lack ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading