Plate Techtonics!

[Nyril]

Several years ago (more then one, less then ten thousand) the idea that the Earth was not the center of the Universe was high in the ranks of things we argued about. Neatly behind that would be the age of the Universe, age of the Earth, the Earth goes around the sun, Earth is flat, etc. In time, a number of these ideas were accepted by pretty much everyone. By that I mean that I doubt even YEC will argue the point that the Earth is the center of the Universe and in addition to being flat also has the sun and everything else revolve around it.

On that line of thinking, I'd like to ask what you think of plate tectonics in that regard. It isn't brought up much on these boards, but because it neatly explains how we get fossils and strata on opposite sides of the Ocean all neatly lined up (such as the shore between Africa and South America), I imagine there must be some controversy surrounding it.

So, plate tectonics, is it like the Earth being round, or closer to evolution in terms of the amount of public debate surrounding it?

[juliod]

A more serious question is: Why can't I vote in polls?

My answer would be the "fact" one. It is a fact that plate techtonics is happening now. It is also a theory in that plate movements are the best current explanation for various geological features.

Sort of like evolution, really...

DanZ

[USIncognito]

I'm going to play Devil's advocate, but only slightly. The evidence of Plate Tectonics being a valid and evidenced theory is so overwhelming that it's an exercise in wilfull ignorance to ignore it (I once had a YEC tell me that the U.S. Geological Survey was lying about changes in magnetic polarity {or at least evidence of such} when I posted it to a debate forum), but to be intellectually honest, I have to reserve the possibility that the theory could be demonstrated to be incorrect.

[otseng]

OK, I had wanted to defer on talking about plate tectonics until the Questions for Uniformitarianists have been satisfactorily addressed. But, since this thread has been started...

Because it neatly explains how we get fossils and strata on opposite sides of the Ocean all neatly lined up (such as the shore between Africa and South America), I imagine there must be some controversy surrounding it.

Actually, I believe the Global Flood Model fits better.

A more serious question is: Why can't I vote in polls?

If you are not logged in or you have already voted, then voting is disabled.

Since 2 people so far have voted that plate tectonics is a virtual fact, please present your evidence to back your claims. I eagerly await to see how people can support plate tectonics as a virtual fact.

[MagusYanam]

Well, Otseng, make that three - but I would gladly offer evidence in support of plate tectonics.

Firstly, there is the existence of Sutur's Island (Icelandic Surtsey) on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. This was an observed phenomenon: Sutur's Island emerged from the ocean in a spectacular eruption in November of 1963. This is indication that there is seismic and volcanic activity along observed fault lines, which in this case is indicative of seafloor spreading.

National Geographic has a very nice full spread in its most recent Atlas of the World featuring a world map with epicentres of notable seismic activities (earthquakes and eruptions) of the 20th century. It doesn't take an expert to note that almost all of the Earth's seismic activity takes place around fault lines, like the Ring of Fire (Alaska to New Zealand) around the Pacific and Philippine Plates, or the volcanic eruptions of East Africa (where the Somali and African Plates meet), or the famous earthquakes of California and Western Mexico (where the Pacific Plate meets the North American Plate). There is plenty of contemporary evidence to support plate tectonics - enough, at any rate, to convince my father (who, being a geophysicist, has some degree of expertise in this field of study).

All that being said, I should like to see some convincing evidence for the flood model.

[otseng]

Firstly, there is the existence of Sutur's Island (Icelandic Surtsey) on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. This was an observed phenomenon: Sutur's Island emerged from the ocean in a spectacular eruption in November of 1963. This is indication that there is seismic and volcanic activity along observed fault lines, which in this case is indicative of seafloor spreading.

The Flood Model explains this as well. I guess what I'd like to see is evidence that is specific for the plate tectonic theory.

All that being said, I should like to see some convincing evidence for the flood model.

That is covered in the Global Flood thread and I've also posted some in the Flood as Science thread.

And before people try to keep on bringing up about the Flood Model, let me remind everyone in advance that this thread is about plate tectonics. This topic can cover a lot of ground so let's stick to the topic at hand.

[MagusYanam]

The Flood Model explains this as well. I guess what I'd like to see is evidence that is specific for the plate tectonic theory.

I was afraid the reply might be something like this. Plate tectonics is the unifying model that explains all of this evidence, and explains satisfactorily both the observed phenomena of continental drift and seafloor spreading. Whether or not the flood model can support it seems to me to be immaterial; what we have in plate tectonics is a theory that can explain, relatively simply, almost all of the world's seismic activity, remanent magnetism and shifting of the earth's poles over time, seafloor spreading, et cetera - something which the flood model cannot do.

Going into the evidential specifics of seafloor spreading and continental drift would take some doing, but they do exist. The work of the Joint Oceanographic Institutions / Deep Earth Sampling and Deep Sea Drilling Project during the '60's and '70's has determined the age of oceanic crust to be uniformly about 200 million years younger than the continental. From what I've seen on the 'Flood as Science' threads, the flood model cannot explain this satisfactorily as can seafloor spreading, and thus plate tectonics. There have been observed at work subduction zones, major fault lines and other geological phenomena that would seem to confirm again and again the tectonic model. I gave the short list in the last post - much of the geologic study of these regions has been extremely productive when coupled with the basic assumption of plate tectonics. The model has revolutionised the study of geology as we know it, helping us predict earthquakes and other seismic activity before it happens - it works in practise. Can the flood model boast as much?

[Nyril]

Although I got most of the information I'm using from my geology class, I'm also using this website to help assert my claims.

The Flood Model explains this as well. I guess what I'd like to see is evidence that is specific for the plate tectonic theory.

Why is it that we only see fossils such as glossopteris floral and mesosaurus in areas where we think continents were touching (in these instances, the South America, Africa, and Antartica borders) and not all over the world? Since we have approximated the rate at which the continents are moving (anywhere from .25 to 10 cm a year) and we can say that when this dinosaur was alive it lived in that specific region, our model predicts you'll find fossils in these regions, and you do.

However, with your flood model, why don't we see fossils of this creature distributed around the world? If the waters can take the creature from Africa to Antartica to South America across oceans, why didn't it take the creatures to Europe or Australia or places that it absolutely could not have been under plate tectonics? I think it would be excellent evidence against plate tectonics if you could produce fossils in a region that shouldn't be able to have them, carried by the waters of the flood.

Back on topic, here's some evidence that's been presented to me in class that I accept. Again, I'm using that website to mirror what I've learned, so that I can show I'm not just making things up.

Fit of Continents - Continental slopes of S. America and Africa at 2,000 meters depth match in shape like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle.
Rock and Structural Similarities - Mountain chains that end abruptly at the edge of a continent can be traced to continue on another continent on the other side of an ocean. Rock types and ages correlate across continents, as well as faults.
Paleoclimates - Rock deposits restricted to certain climates (glacial till, coal, evaporites) have been found in areas having very
different climates today. Glacial deposits of Paleozoic age covered sections of S. America, Africa, India, Antarctica, and Australia (Gondwanaland). Other rock deposits (coal and evaporites) show matches across the Northern Hemisphere continents (Laurasia) and indicate a tropical climate (location near equator).
Fossil Evidence - Most compelling of the older evidence for continental drift. Uniform plant fossils of distinct type (Glossopteris floral) have been found in equivalent-aged rock on the Gondwanaland continents only. Seeds were too large to have been wind-carried across oceans and present-day climates are too varied. Restricted animal fossils: Mesosaurus (a freshwater reptile) and 2 land-dwelling reptiles, also point to linkages of S. America, Africa, and Antarctica.

Paleomagnetism (Natural Remnant Magnetism) - Iron-bearing rocks contain minerals like magnetite which act as fossil compasses. The Earth's magnetic field orientation is "frozen in" these iron-bearing minerals when igneous rocks are cooled below the Curie Point (about 580 degrees C for magnetite). Later movement of the rock can be determined by the orientation of the current magnetic field compared to the rock's paleomagnetism. The declination (angle away from true north) of the paleomagnetism gives the longitude that the rock formed at, and the inclination (tilt from horizontal) gives the latitude.

Although that isn't everything, how do you address those things I've quoted without plate tectonics?

[otseng]

Can the flood model boast as much?

And I was afraid replies would turn into this. This thread is not for pitting plate tectonics against the flood. The flood threads are quite lengthy and there is no need to reiterate them here. However, no evidence have been presented yet on plate tectonics on this forum. This thread is yalls chance to prove your case.

[YEC]

Oh...I forgot, things happened yesteryears just the same as they happen today.

Because we see the continents creeping today..It's obvious they were also creeping just after and during the flood...riiiiight?