Difference between revisions of "Continental Drift"
(username removed) |
m (1 revision) |
(No difference)
| |
Revision as of 07:04, 25 May 2014
Continental Drift
Evolution Says....
The Facts Are .....
(1) Continental drift is enthusiastically endorsed by the majority of today's geologists. There are, however, a number of very eminent geologists who do not support the theory. EOS, Vol. 60, 1979 p:207-211; American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, Vol. 56, 1972 p:269-336
(2) One study in very-long-baseline interferometry seems to show that the continents are drifting in relation to each other. A set of published data gives a rate of movement of around 1cm per year. The reported information does not say how the rate was obtained, how far the plates really moved, and over what period of time the measurements were taken. The analysis of the baseline from which the data was taken, however, shows that it has random fluctuations as big as the rates stated for the continental movement. With such errors in measurement, no confidence should be placed in the data, or in the results derived from it. Scientific American, Vol. 255, No. 5, 1986 p:44-52
(3) The limit of reading of the interferometer used in the tectonic plate movement experiment by Carter
& Robinson ((2) above), is one centimetre in relative position. If the limit of reading is equal to the size of the values being measured, then the data from the experiment is absolutely meaningless, and cannot be used to scientifically prove continental drift. Scientific American, Vol. 255, No. 5, 1986 p:44-52
(4) "..... the baseline lengths are increasing at a rate of between one centimetre and two centimetres per year. On the other hand, the baseline lengths also exhibit equally large random fluctuations; hence from these data alone we would be reluctant to conclude that we had really measured plate motions." Written by W.E. Carter & D. Robertson in "Studying the Earth by Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry", in Scientific American, Vol. 255(5), 1986 p:51
(5) The most intriguing outcome of one set of measurements of continental movement is that Texas and Massachusetts are moving towards each other at 1.0cm/yr. This is not possible, as the two sites are on the same rigid continent. This throws doubt on the exactness of the data collected during the experiment. Scientific American, Vol. 255, No. 5, 1986 p:44-52
(6) The idea of continental drift where the continents fit together like a jigsaw puzzle into one super-continent, is based on the apparent fit of the eastern bulge of South America into the south-western curve of Africa. Even with the use of computers, there is an inconsistency of an overlap of the continents. There are a number of ways to fit the continents together, but only one of these must be correct if the theory is true. Even with the possibility of some matching, plate tectonics cannot explain the drift of the continents, especially the rotation of Australia to fit into eastern North America.
S.W. Carey (ed.), "Continental Drift: A Symposium", University of Tasmania: Hobart (Aust), 1958 p:162-171; Royal Society of London Philosophical Transactions (Series A), Vol. 258, 1972 p:269-336
(7) "Why has such a profound change occurred in the short space of a decade? Most scientists maintain
- or at least argue for public consumption - that their profession marches towards truth by accumulating more and more data, under the guidance of an infallible procedure called 'the scientific method'. If this were true, my question [about continental drift] would have an easy answer". Written by biologist Stephen Gould about the shift in geological opinion from fixed to shifting continents, in his book "Ever Since Darwin", W.W. Norton, 1977 p:161
(8) "Strictly speaking, then, we do not have a scientific hypothesis [with regard to continental drift], but rather a pragmatic model ..... obviously, this kind of model is not testable in any rigorous scientific sense." J.C. Maxwell in the article "The New Global Tectonics" in Geotimes, Vol. 18, No. 1, 1973 p:31