Re: ALL the oceanic crust is recycled in 180 My: unrealistic


"Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1imwvjr.vf556r1ksvmeN%auxotectonics_deletethis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
George <George@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1imk7ut.1oi5fj7g7l1h1N%auxotectonics_deletethis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Never heard about fractionnal crystallization? What happen when
volatiles are added to peridotite? Do you still get silicate poor
melts?

Volatiles are added to peridotite at MORs all the time (hydrothermal
fluids
from fractures in the ocean floor).

Jeez, yet another idiocy. No it doesn't! the water does not reach the
place of melting! If it was the case, you'll get silica rich magmas.


Umm, black smokers:

http://whyfiles.org/coolimages/images/csi/nur04506.jpg

Next.

The big difference is in the scale.
Plate tectonics claims that ALL the oceanic crust is recycled in 200
My.

You'll have to point out what is your source for that statement.

Jeez. Your ignorance of basic plate tectonics principle is pathetic.

Except a small area in the Med sea, ALL of the ocean floor is less than
180 My. If you assume (Plate tectonics assumtion) that the size remained
constant, then you asume that there was at least the same surface of
ocean floor 180 My ago (2/3 of Earth surface), and that this floor was
totally destroyed in the last 180 Ma (recycled).

All of the CURRENT OCEAN FLOOR is from 150-230 million years old. If you
ignore the former ocean basins that have been incorporated into the
continental land masses and have otherwise accreted to it, of course, you
can make up any old story you choose. But in doing so, you risk ridicule
(not like you haven't already been subjected to that) from the entire
gologic community.

=> ALL the oceanic crust is recycled in 180 My leaving no floor older
than 180 My.

Totally unrealistic isn't it? Yep, but that is what YOU believe.

No ocean crust older than 180 my? So you truly are an old Earth
creationist. I'm not surprised. Floppy, there are massive volumes of
former oceanic crust as acretions onto the continent as well as composin the
basement rock of many of the continents, as well as former basins that have
been filled in. You really should stop this bull*** and take a geology
class.

Upduction implies that just a few hundred km get buried.

Since all you are doing here is renaming subduction, and since you now
agree
that recycling occurs, how is growth occurring?

What don't you understand in "The big difference is in the scale."
If there is only a few thousand square km that are recycled, then almost
all the floor produced by ridges is extra surface.

And what evidence, given all the data on continental acretion, and remnant
oceanic crust, do you have that only "a few thousand square kilometers" have
been recycled? While you are answering that question, you can explain how
crust is recycled in an expanding Earth (and cite real world examples), and
how that differs from the explanation posited in plate tectonics. Then you
can explain where the extra mass is coming from, what it is composed of, how
it differs from normal matter, and how EE avoids violating the laws of
physics and chemistry, and why it ignores the biological and stratigraphic
evidence.

George


.