Oldest crustal formation

[Ophiolite]

Deny = make a statement of disagreement
Refute = provide convincing contrary evidence in a logical, structured manner.

Now, refute Benioff zones as evidence of subduction. Do this in your own words, without using irrelevant, out of context quotations.

 

[OilIsMastery]

So-called Benioff zones are evidence of oceanic seafloor spreading, the exact opposite of subduction.

"As you understand my way is not paved with roses, because if what I claim is right, as, of course, I think it is, then mainstream scientists have to throw their claims into the garbage can." -- Stavros T. Tassos, seismologist/geophysicist, September 2008

"In the oral session, except for one presentation that was clearly pro plate tectonics, and another one that did not address the issue of global and large scale geology specifically, there was general consensus that subduction, and therefore plate tectonics, is mechanically impossible." -- Stavros T. Tassos (seismologist/geophysicist) and Karsten M. Storetvedt (geophysicist), November 2007

"Five propositions in Geology, namely Plate Tectonics, Constant Size Earth, Heat Engine Earth, Elastic Rebound, and the Organic Origin of Hydrocarbon Reserves are challenged as Myths because their potential truth is not confirmed by Observation, and/or Experiment, and/or Logic. In their place the Excess Mass Stress Tectonics - EMST, i.e., a Solid, Quantified, Growing and Radiating Earth and its implications, such as the Inorganic Origin of Hydrocarbons, claims to be a Comprehensive Proposition." -- Stavros T. Tassos, seismologist/geophysicist, November 2007

"Now that the subduction concept has been developed for almost 30 years, it can be said that it has not been fruitful geologically." -- Yury V. Chudinov, geologist, 1998

"There is no doubt that the subduction model constitutes the weakest link in the construction of plate tectonics, as has been repeatedly pointed out." -- Yury V. Chudinov, geologist, 1998

"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

The real science is there for true scientists. Unforunately religious fundamentalists and dogmatic zealots don't benefit from scientific discovery.

"The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel W. Carey, geologist, 1988

"I have no doubt that our own orthodox dogma still has falsities within the self-evident axioms we believe we know to be true." -- Samuel W. Carey, geologist 1988

"We have to be prepared always for the possibility that each new discovery, no matter which science furnishes it, may modify the conclusions that we draw." -- Alfred L. Wegener, astrophysicist/geoscientist, 1928

 

[Ophiolite]

Failing grade. I told you to respond in your own words. This concatenation of random quotes offers zero evidence that you have any understanding of this topic. You get zero marks,
Try again, leave, or admit that you are wrong. Failure to respond in a structured way in your own words will be an admittance on your part that you are mistaken.

 

[OilIsMastery]

You deliberately ignored "my own words" posted above. And all of the quotes posted above are relevant scientific quotes from PhDs. I am not making this up.

 

[Vkothii]

Subduction? I don't ignore it; I refute it.

But that's because you're an idiot.

You haven't refuted it, you haven't posted anything that supports your claims; you've gone into another trance, and started chanting again.

Can you support your repeated statement that "seafloor spreading is the exact opposite of subduction"?

How did we get from Hadean crustal formations, to tectonic theory, subduction and the mid-ocean ridge?
Oh yeah...

 

[Trippy]

In that case I must be hallucinating because this sur elooks like a Benioff zone to me.
(Map generated curtosey of Geonet, using earthquake data 1948 - to, greater than 40km depth. <40km depth excluded because they're so numerous and wide spread they hide everything).

Oops, looks like you're wrong again.

What am I ignoring that contradicts me? Subduction? I don't ignore it; I refute it.

No, you ignore it.

For example, you completely ignored this map which clearly demonstrates an active Wadati-Benioff zone associated with an active subduction zone.

Refute it.

Explain the distribution of earthquakes greater thab 40km depth without resorting to a collection of random assorted out of context and unrelated quotes.

 

[OilIsMastery]

No, you ignore it.

For example, you completely ignored this map which clearly demonstrates an active Wadati-Benioff zone associated with an active subduction zone.

Refute it.

Explain the distribution of earthquakes greater thab 40km depth without resorting to a collection of random assorted out of context and unrelated quotes.

How does that irrelevant graph prove subduction?

 

[Vkothii]

It doesn't prove subduction, you idiot, it supports a theory, called subduction theory.

Why do you insist on behaving like a complete moron?

 

[OilIsMastery]

It doesn't prove subduction, you idiot, it supports a theory, called subduction theory.

The existence of earthquakes at deep faults does not in any way support subduction mythology.

 

[Ophiolite]

You deliberately ignored "my own words" posted above. And all of the quotes posted above are relevant scientific quotes from PhDs. I am not making this up.

No I did not ignore them. You said this: "So-called Benioff zones are evidence of oceanic seafloor spreading, the exact oppposite of subduction."
This is a statement of opinion. You offered no evidence to support this contention. This contention is completely at odds with accepted, demonstrated, validated plate tectonic theory. To challenge it in a scientific manner you need to offer specific evidence that refutes the plate tectonic theory.
You did not do so. You stated an opinion. An ill founded opinion. I considered your statement and dismissed it as irrelevant, subjective and valuless. I did not ignore it.

You also said: "The real science is there for true scientists. Unforunately religious fundamentalists and dogmatic zealots don't benefit from scientific discovery."
This is a further statement of opinion, phrased in a highly emotional, almost hysterical style and containing absolutely nothing of substance or value from a scientific standpoint.
I considered it, then rejected it as being irrelevant and somewhat nauseating.

So 'your own words' totally failed to address the issue in any constructive way, were wholly subjective, contained nothing of scientific value, or relevance. Again, they were not ignored, but dismissed.

Now lets look at the quotes you believe, for some obscure reason - perhaps related to cognition difficulties - to be relevant to your argument.

"As you understand my way is not paved with roses, because if what I claim is right, as, of course, I think it is, then mainstream scientists have to throw their claims into the garbage can." -- Stavros T. Tassos, seismologist/geophysicist, September 2008

No reference to the journal in which these words appeared.
No context in which the statement was made.
No indication of what the author was talking about.
No discussion of what constraints the author feels apply to his views.
Conclusion: wholly irrelevant.

"In the oral session, except for one presentation that was clearly pro plate tectonics, and another one that did not address the issue of global and large scale geology specifically, there was general consensus that subduction, and therefore plate tectonics, is mechanically impossible." -- Stavros T. Tassos (seismologist/geophysicist) and Karsten M. Storetvedt (geophysicist), November 2007

No reference for what conference this relates to.
No background on the character and goal of the oral session.
No indication of the role of the two authors.
No explanation of the context within which the 'impossibility' of plate tectonics was declared.
Most critically, not one single piece of evidence from the papers, or the oral presentations to support the alleged conclusion that subduction was impossible.
Conclusion: hearsay alleged conclusions with zero evidence to support such alleged conclusions and hence all of minimal value

I'm not wasting my time on any more, based upon the irrelevance of your first two selections. Withdraw them and I'll consider exploring the other ones.

 

[pjdude1219]

One thing if the earth was growing wouldn't the laser being used to hit the mirror on the moon constantly have to be adjusted due to the change in angle? Also last time i checked that isn't happening.

 

[Ophiolite]

One thing if the earth was growing wouldn't the laser being used to hit the mirror on the moon constantly have to be adjusted due to the change in angle? Also last time i checked that isn't happening.

In addition we have been able to measure the relative movements of plates using satellite positioning technology. These match the expectations from plate tectonics, yet cannot be explained by an expanding Earth.

 

[OilIsMastery]

No I did not ignore them.

Yes you did. Of the 10 quotes posted above you ignored 70% of them to focus on red herrings and straw man fallacies.

This is a statement of opinion.

Shock and awe.

This contention is completely at odds with accepted, demonstrated, validated plate tectonic theory.

Religious fundamentalism isn't science.

To challenge it in a scientific manner you need to offer specific evidence that refutes the plate tectonic theory.
You did not do so. You stated an opinion. An ill founded opinion. I considered your statement and dismissed it as irrelevant, subjective and valuless. I did not ignore it.

I refer you to my blog OilIsMastery.Blogspot.Com.

Now lets look at the quotes you believe, for some obscure reason - perhaps related to cognition difficulties - to be relevant to your argument.
No reference to the journal in which these words appeared.

That's because that particular quote was not made in a journal but in an email. See I actually know and correspond with real and intelligent contemporary 21st century scientists unlike some people on this board.

No context in which the statement was made.

The context isn't necessary if you familiarize yourself with contemporary 21st century science.

No indication of what the author was talking about.

If you had any clue who the author was it would be obvious.

No discussion of what constraints the author feels apply to his views.
Conclusion: wholly irrelevant.

If you really want to know: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=85905

You can google the author. Learning however would require effort.

No reference for what conference this relates to.

CHALLENGE OUR MYTHS
AAPG & AAPG EUROPEAN REGION ENERGY CONFERENCE
AND EXHIBITION
18-21 November, 2007
Megaron, Athens International Conference Centre, Greece

The “Challenge Our Myths” AAPG Athens conference, under the inspired general chairmanship of Geir Lunde, was attended by more than 1200 international participants. During the three days, and in 25 parallel sessions, more than 300 oral and poster presentations were delivered. The whole conference, including sessions like Un-Traditional Theories and Ideas in Global and Large Scale Geology, Unconventional Resources – The Modern Theory of Abiotic Genesis of Hydrocarbons and Unconventional Heavy Oil Resources – Advances, Challenges and Case Studies, mark a turning point for the Geosciences.

No background on the character and goal of the oral session.

It is the first time such themes have been raised at a larger Western geological conference. The general slogan - Challenge Our Myths - directly challenges both plate tectonics and the long-held view (in the West) that the mass of petroleum is “fossil fuel”. It is the first time at an important international geological conference that a session like Un-Traditional Theories and Ideas in Global and Large Scale Geology – in which fundamental geological and physical concepts were challenged and in their place comprehensive new propositions were presented in their place – was considered a highlight of
the whole conference.

In our session we had 25 presentations, 15 orals and 10 posters, covering a wide range of topics, from fundamental issues such as matter and energy, myth and para-myth, large and small scale tectonic movements, generation and propagation of earthquakes, oil and salt generation and exploration, the close association of petroleum provinces with the global tectonic pattern, to tsunami implications.

No indication of the role of the two authors.

Just in case you want to learn something: http://aapg.confex.com/aapg/2007int/index.epl

 

[Trippy]

How does that irrelevant graph prove subduction?

It illustrates a Wadati-Benioff zone.

It illustrates that Earthquake depth increases as a function of distance from a deep ocean trench.
It illustrates that this pattern is followed in one direction only (that which the subducting plate travels in).
It illustrates that this pattern follows an acceleration curve.

All of these things can only be accounted for with subduction (we're still waiting for you to demonstrate otherwise, and we have noticed your relentless dodging and sidestepping).

Or are you suggesting that the oceanic crust is 300 km thick?

 

[Trippy]

In addition we have been able to measure the relative movements of plates using satellite positioning technology. These match the expectations from plate tectonics, yet cannot be explained by an expanding Earth.

One of several points i've raised, but OIM has yet to address.

 

[OilIsMastery]

It illustrates a Wadati-Benioff zone.

Whatever that is. You probably also think it illustrates the existence of unicorns.

It illustrates that Earthquake depth increases as a function of distance from a deep ocean trench.

So?

It illustrates that this pattern is followed in one direction only (that which the subducting plate travels in).

No it doesn't.

The apparent overriding of the North Pacific Ocean plate by North America and Australia, often quoted as a classic example of plate consumption by subduction is here refuted. Instead, by consideration of the spherical spatial and temporal plate motion history of the Earth as a whole, this region is interpreted as a region of Mesozoic asymmetric spreading history evolving towards Cenozoic symmetric type spreading

Link

It illustrates that this pattern follows an acceleration curve.

All of these things can only be accounted for with subduction (we're still waiting for you to demonstrate otherwise, and we have noticed your relentless dodging and sidestepping).

Or are you suggesting that the oceanic crust is 300 km thick?

?

 

[OilIsMastery]

One thing if the earth was growing wouldn't the laser being used to hit the mirror on the moon constantly have to be adjusted due to the change in angle? Also last time i checked that isn't happening.

In addition we have been able to measure the relative movements of plates using satellite positioning technology. These match the expectations from plate tectonics, yet cannot be explained by an expanding Earth.

Here is the reality:

Measuring techniques that have been developed to measure the dimensions of the Earth include: Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI), Satellite Laser Ranging (SLR), Lunar Laser Ranging (LLR), Global Positioning Systems (GPS), and Doppler Orbitography and Radiopositioning Integrated by Satellite (DORIS).

Observational data is now continuously being recorded from each of these measurement techniques and the mathematically treated data is routinely combined and used to calculate a solution to the global geodetic network. Solutions to this global network are regularly published on the Internet by the International Earth Rotation Service Central Bureau (IERS) located in Paris and by the NASA Goddard Space Flight Centre (GSFC)

The information that is being made publicly available from the bureau includes the X-Y-Z geocentric co-ordinates for each observation site, relative to the centre of the Earth, and their annual motion vectors. Baseline vector components, measured between two or more observation sites, are also provided from VLBI measurement techniques.

The application of advanced space geodetic techniques to studies of the Earth has progressed to the point where precise estimation of present day plate motion is now quoted to sub-centimetre accuracy. In other words, they can now measure the dimensions of the Earth and the motions of the continents extremely accurately.

These measurements have shown that the present-day horizontal motions of each of the major crustal plares are very close to the million year average motion vectors determined directly from oceanic magnetic mapping. These two measurement techniques therefore fully support eachother and it gives strong justification in using the oceanic mapping for plate reconstructions.

Link

You people are grasping at straws. You've succeeded.

 

[Trippy]

Whatever that is. You probably also think it illustrates the existence of unicorns.

You think you're qualified to talk about Subduction zones, and you don;t even know what a Wadati-Benioff zone is?

So?

So how do you explain that observation (which, incidentally is exactly what one would expect using subduction) with an expanding earth model?

No it doesn't.

Yes it does. Pay attention to the purty colours.
Notice how in the top half of the map, the further to the left you move, the deeper the corresponding colour? That's because the plate on teh right (the pacific plate) is subducting beneath the plate on the left (the indo-australian plate).

Things are complicated in the middle, most of the motion is transform, because down the bottom, the direction of subduction reverses, as does the depth trend (it now moves in the opposite direction.

The apparent overriding of the North Pacific Ocean plate by North America, often quoted as a classic example of plate consumption by subduction is here refuted. Instead, by consideration of the spherical spatial and temporal plate motion history of the Earth as a whole, this region is interpreted as a region of Mesozoic asymmetric spreading history evolving towards Cenozoic symmetric type spreading

Completely irrelevant - i'm not talking about North America.

?

Look at the map key.

The deepest quakes are from 300km depth.
Subduction involves falling objects.

 

[Vkothii]

You people are grasping at straws.

What a moron.
Where does any of that quote mention an expanding earth? Nowhere?
How does it back up your claim? What are you claiming?
Or you're just constructing your own reality again?

What does "seafloor spreading is the EXACT OPPOSITE of subduction" mean again?

Oh sorry, you haven't actually explained this yet, have you?

 

[OilIsMastery]

You think you're qualified to talk about Subduction zones, and you don;t even know what a Wadati-Benioff zone is?

I know what it is -- it's a myth. Do you know what a chimera is?

So how do you explain that observation (which, incidentally is exactly what one would expect using subduction) with an expanding earth model?

I refer you to my answer posted above which you deliberately ignored: oceanic seafloor spreading.