Re: Really interesting paleogeographic map suggests ocean basins opening and closing repeatedly in the same place?

On Jan 2, 1:56 pm, "George" <Geo...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"J. Taylor" <nchiw...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:ecb53f31-9369-4d75-aaa2-963a294c260d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jan 1, 8:35 am, "George" <Geo...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





"J. Taylor" <nchiw...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:938ea26f-3a4b-4a73-b16f-bbad069295cc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Dec 31, 11:48 am, "George" <Geo...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1istqjo.l7irns1994jolN%auxotectonics_deletethis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

George <Geo...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

By the way, PT doesn't say that the plates move randomly.

Idiot; In this case, PT could approximatively predict where the
craton
were 500 My ago just from the age of ocean floor.

PT doesn't say that the plates move randomly.

PT can't predict the path of lithospheric chunks over 1 billions years
from current distribution. Unpredictable movement is pretty close to
random movement.

Wrong. Lots of things happen to rocks over the course of a billion
years.
Most of the time, the rocks are destroyed. Your argument appears to be
very
closely related to the argument creationists make when they claim that
there
are no tranistional fossils. If PT can't make definite predictions over
sizable chunks of geologic time as to exactly how plates will move, it
is
because the Earth is a dynamic planet, and evidence is not always
preserved.
Having said that, it can make reasonable predictions about future
movements
within a limited time frame based on past and current movements:

http://www.scotese.com/future.htm

http://www.scotese.com/future1.htm

http://www.scotese.com/future2.htm

And they will be tested, how? Wait around a couple million years?

The record on the ocean floor does not show huge chucks of anything
missing, the only thing that needs for that to be true is that false
theory you cling to.

JT
========================
Actually, it does, or are you suggesting that such microplates as the
farallon plate have always had the volume they appear to have today?

And the evidence for the farallon plate is completely known from PThttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farallon_Plate
Which is false and therefore the farallon plate is also a work of
fiction.

====================

Really?   Where did Juan de Fuca, Explorer, Gorda,  the Cocos Plate, and the
Nazca plates come from?
====================

EPR->NA<--------------MAR

According to PT
EPR---------------->NA<MAR

The EPR is the boundary for Juan de Fuca Plate, Gorda Plate, Cocos
Plate today and they are all supposedly the remains of the Farallon
Plate

Which is really bizzare

http://w3.gorge.net/jota/_jt/compare.jpg

The distance NA supposedly moved is about 1853 miles

And the supposed spreading by EPR into the Western Pacific 4548 miles

Now if both sides of EPR spread at the same rate that is 4548 miles
subducted under NA of just NEW, then we add in the imagined  Farallon
Plate of 1853, that is 6400 miles subducted, but then we still have
the remains of the Farallon Plate.

If PT is not pure bull*** then nothing is.
=====================
Except that it has already been established that the EPR spreads
assymetrically, and that there are huge folds of ancient crust beneath the
western margins of south and central America.  Next.


You did not establish that from any evidence found on the ocean floor

So let me see if I have this straight. To see a huge folds of ancient
crust beneath the
western margins of south and central America, we first have to imagine
convection for PT works differently than convection anywhere else,
does assymetrical spreading, has the NA plate move with absolutely no
subduction at all, over the top of another plate that was subducting
but had no spreading on the other end, to now lay folded in the
mantle.

Why did you not just say, PT sprung fully formed from the head of
Zeus, from an illicit affair with a water nymph?

JT
.

Quantcast