Posted on 07/25/2003 7:32:42 PM PDT by ckilmer
You happen to be talking to a personal friend of mine who is presently completing a graduate degree in Geochemistry.
From what I have read, the evidence from the mid Atlantic ridge does not support this. However, it does support the fact that the MAGNETIC poles reverse. Also there may be tens of millions of years between each of these events. (Note; should not effect the plate tectonic drift rates)
However, I am NOT a geophysicist so I will leave this up to far more qualified folks than I to correct me if I am wrong here.
It would be better to store it on the moon,
but of course if it detonated the moon would be
thrown out of orbit.
Could be that Chuckie Cagle pried himself off of usenet and dropped himself on Free Republic! A Usenet kook of Medvedian proportions!
He spent three years talking to real bright folks and translating the data into something that most of us can understand.
Rilly? How many silane fires have you put out?
I wonder, then, what is your mechanism for an expanding earth? Or the Standard model. You do know that Arp's model has long been shown to be statistically untenable, right?
You took a general lament personally...
Of course the ACE thinker, Piltdown_Woman, never answers any of the 10 points of empirical evidence I raised on where Plate Tetonic Theory is NOT born out by the hard facts of data. Said in another way: the predictions of what one would expect to find associated with a subduction zone, are not born out when one actually examines such a zone. The logic tight mind of Piltdown_Woman has a response however: when the thinking gets hard, deny that the other point of view exists by Calling such thoughts Pseudo Science.
...and have resorted to emotionally-driven, personal attacks.
You are the person having a temper tantrum. I just answered you in kind. If you reread my posts, the vitriol begins with your insults. The actual problem appears to me that you lack critical thinking about the topic. To you the question is settled: Plate Tectonics is not just a theory; it is revealed truth.
More personal attacks, but with a new wrinkle: now you can actually read my mind.
Plate Tectonics is now dogmatized yet an objective examination of its predictions leaves much to be desired as the ten points I raised demonstrated. ( I could have easily have raised 10 more.)
10 points? Hmmm...if you are in reference to this post you made only 6 statements.
2. collapses when examined under the laws of physics ( less dense crumbly material some how diving into a vastly more dense medium without a source of energy or mechanism even postulated as to how this is done );
I have only one thing to say about this obvious falsehood. Oceanic crust is high in magnesium. It is not "less dense" than high-silica continental crust, nor is it "crumbly"...and yes, it can and does subduct under relatively bouyant continental crust. Please see my previously posted links for an introduction to plate tectonics.
4) it ignores the Hydritic model for the deep earth quake data.
Indeed...because support for this hypothesis comes from the Creation Research Society.
As far as your other questions, I suggest you enroll in an introductory geology class at a local junior college - the subject of plate tectonics is covered quite well at this level.
Could you possibly mean, your Advisor???
Been there, been that helpless sap. Went to a college where that was the standard style of teaching.
Of course, if you go across North America you'll find subduction zones on the other side. Nice try, but this was accounted for years ago in plate techtonic theory, with the Atlantic-type/Pacific-type model.
Try radioactive decay within the Earth itself.
Try to make whipped cream plunge into and below the ice cream in a sundae.
Try to put a styrofoam block against one end of a pool and then slide a semirigid plastic sheet against it. Try tracing the depths of earthquakes around subduction zones. Try correlating andesitic volcanic chains to subduction zones. In other words, look at the natural world and devise a theory, instead of devising a theory and then twisting the natural world as you have done.
A basic astronomy class would not hurt as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.