Oldest crustal formation
- Thread starter Vkothii
- Start date
That's the oldest rock they've found in a continental environment. The oldest rocks in a marine environment are much younger because the earth is growing.
Neither is the sun I take it?
"Condensation of the primary substance [hydrogen?] is going on continuously, this being in a measure proved, for I have established by experiments which admit of no doubt that the sun and other celestial bodies steadily increase in mass and energy and ultimately must explode, reverting to the primary substance." -- Nikola Tesla, physicist, 1935
"The idea of an earth which is constant and unchanging has been restated so often throughout history that it has now become established as a firm fact. It needs no proof -- which is lucky since there is none." -- Stephen Hurrell, engineer, April 2006
The earth is technically growing, it cause techtonic uplift in some locations.
However it's also shrinking mostly on the Indian peninsula which is going underneath the Eurasian continent.
It probably fluctuates slightly from larger to smaller over time.
However it's also shrinking mostly on the Indian peninsula which is going underneath the Eurasian continent.
It probably fluctuates slightly from larger to smaller over time.
Nonsense. Subduction is a myth.
"People don't want to see it. They believe in subduction like a religion." -- Samuel W. Carey, geologist, 1981
"I had taught subduction for more years than any of the present generation of people had been with it. And when they have been in it as long as I have they'll abandon it too." -- Samuel W. Carey, geologist, 1981
I wouldn't bet on it.
Oh my god.
He's actually serious.
OIM:
First off prove it.
If the earth is expanding, there should be a residual signal in GPS data. There is none.
If the earth is expanding, there should be a residual signal in continental drift data - there is none.
If the earth is expanding, where is this magical extra mass coming from?
If there is no subduction, then how do you explain evidence of fossils havong been buried at, or below the depths where we drill for Oil.
If there is no subduction then how do you explain the distribution of earthqukes in a subduction zone?
If there is no subduction then how do you explain the gravity anomalies associated with subduction zones?
If there is no subduction then how do you explain back arck volcanism?
If there is no subduction then how do you explain terrane accreetion?
If there is no subduction then how do you explain the observed temperature anomalies in the mantle?
Seriousley, the list goes pn an on.
He's actually serious.
OIM:
First off prove it.
If the earth is expanding, there should be a residual signal in GPS data. There is none.
If the earth is expanding, there should be a residual signal in continental drift data - there is none.
If the earth is expanding, where is this magical extra mass coming from?
If there is no subduction, then how do you explain evidence of fossils havong been buried at, or below the depths where we drill for Oil.
If there is no subduction then how do you explain the distribution of earthqukes in a subduction zone?
If there is no subduction then how do you explain the gravity anomalies associated with subduction zones?
If there is no subduction then how do you explain back arck volcanism?
If there is no subduction then how do you explain terrane accreetion?
If there is no subduction then how do you explain the observed temperature anomalies in the mantle?
Seriousley, the list goes pn an on.
Wow. Maybe it's time for some critical thinking.
So lets assume subduction is a myth. Looking at your map we see that most of the rock on the ocean floor is not older than 140 million years. We know the Earth is much older, on the order of 4.5 billion years. So taking into account the 'growth rate' of Earth that we can infer from your map, we're left with three possibilities.
1. The Earth is much, much younger than we think. Unlikely considering all the evidence showing it to be billions of years old.
2. The Earth didn't start 'growing' until a couple hundred million years ago, for some inexplicable reason.
3. The Earth should be much bigger than it is now.
So which is it?
So lets assume subduction is a myth. Looking at your map we see that most of the rock on the ocean floor is not older than 140 million years. We know the Earth is much older, on the order of 4.5 billion years. So taking into account the 'growth rate' of Earth that we can infer from your map, we're left with three possibilities.
1. The Earth is much, much younger than we think. Unlikely considering all the evidence showing it to be billions of years old.
2. The Earth didn't start 'growing' until a couple hundred million years ago, for some inexplicable reason.
3. The Earth should be much bigger than it is now.
So which is it?
Oh yeah - one more.
If the earth is expanding, and subduction is a myth, then how do you explain the reformation of Super continents.
Pangea wasn't the first, it was just the most recent.
There's also been:
Vaalbara (3.1-2.8 Ga)
Kenorland (2.7 - 2.5 Ga)
Columbia (1.8-1.5 Ga)
Rodinia (1 - 0.75 Ga)
There's also Pannotia which formed as Rodinia broke up (Ironically - plates rotate as well as translate, and so does what's on them, this led to a 'glancing blow' between the two main fragments during the breakup).
And of course, the fragments of Rodinia became Pangea
If the earth is expanding, and subduction is a myth, then how do you explain the reformation of Super continents.
Pangea wasn't the first, it was just the most recent.
There's also been:
Vaalbara (3.1-2.8 Ga)
Kenorland (2.7 - 2.5 Ga)
Columbia (1.8-1.5 Ga)
Rodinia (1 - 0.75 Ga)
There's also Pannotia which formed as Rodinia broke up (Ironically - plates rotate as well as translate, and so does what's on them, this led to a 'glancing blow' between the two main fragments during the breakup).
And of course, the fragments of Rodinia became Pangea
Last edited:
At this stage, although it's largely a moot point by now, it's worth pointing out that the map posted by OIM as 'proving' the expanding earth completely fails to account for (for example) the presence of Ophiolites which indicate the presence of oceanic crust significantly older than what's on that map.
kite_runner02
Registered Member
"Growing" is too vague a term for scientific purposes. By growing do you mean "changing", "evolving", "progressing", "increasing in mass", "decreasing in mass"? Or is there something else you mean?
You can say the Earth is doing all those alternative things, and still say it's not growing.
You can say the Earth is doing all those alternative things, and still say it's not growing.
The truth needs no defenders. See age of the oceanic lithosphere posted above.
Vkothii, I believe the many scientists at the National Geophysical Data Center. You don't.
"No longer a rebel – they now believe it! At least, they all will eventually. It takes some people a while to catch up. " -- Samuel W. Carey, geologist, 2000
Last edited:
This proves nothing, apart from the fact that the current generation of oceanic lithosphere is young.
As I have already said - if what you're saying is true, then how do you explain teh fact that we have Ophiolites that are substantially older than the current generation of oceanic crust, and we also have Ophiolites overlying crustal sequences.
No, you believe a small minority, but the majority of scientists at that institution support subduction theory.OilISMastery said:
Check it out - try googling "subduction" along with "national geophysical data center" (I got 21,500 hits, so far just one hit amongst them, from a site called 'expanding-earth.org' that appears to cast aspersions). Not a lot of support for your "many scientists", I'm sorry.
So you reject the age of the oceanic lithosphere as provided and documented by the many scientists at the National Geophysical Data Center?