The theory of plate tectonics is wrong (Talk.Origins)
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
- The theory of plate tectonics is false.
- Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood, 6th ed. * Nevins, Stuart E., 1976. Continental drift, plate tectonics, and the Bible. Impact 32 (Feb.).
CreationWiki response: Two points need to be noted here:
- Not all creationists question plate tectonics, in fact two Flood models' Catastrophic Plate Tectonics and Vertical Plate tectonics; are based on plate tectonics.
- As worded above this claim is overly simplified. It needs to be noted that in no place does Talk Origins actually refute any reason for questioning plate tectonics given in these articles.
(Talk.Origins quotes in blue)
1. Plate tectonics was uncertain as recently as the 1960s, but evidence in its favor has become overwhelming:
So, lets look at Talk Origins cited evidence and see just how overwhelming it really is.
- Plate motions are measured directly.
True, but the results show significant deviations for what was predicted by plate tectonics. About 50% of the measurements show deviations of 2mm/year or more. These deviations are expected if the observed motion is a result of the Earth still suffering form the after affects of a major catastrophe such as the Genesis Flood.
- The eastern edge of the continental shelves of North and South America fit closely (within 50 km) with the western continental shelves of Africa and Europe The Mid-Atlantic Ridge has the same shape.
- Plant and animal fossil distributions, geological formations, and indications of ancient climate match up in Africa and South America as if the continents once fit together.
- Paleomagnetic studies show different polar wandering on different continents, indicating that the continents moved relative to one another.
- (3rd one taken out of order.)
While this does support the idea that Africa and South America once were together, it says nothing about how they came apart. At least two catastrophic models; Hydroplate theory and Shock Dynamics; explain this data so it is hardly proof of plate tectonics.
Furthermore if one looks at the Pacific Ocean Ridge, it looks as though North America has run over it. This would simply not be possible with plate tectonics, but it would be possible with Hydroplate theory and Shock Dynamics.
- When new rocks are formed, they record the earth's current magnetic field, which reverses occasionally. The magnetic field pattern recorded in the sea floor rocks shows bands mirrored across a spreading center. (See also Magnetic reversals.)
This is not an accurate representation of what is actually on the sea floor. While the rocks do show magnetic reversals, they are not even close to being the mirrored pattern predicted by Plate tectonics. The actual reversal patterns are quite chaotic. This fact is even more evident when one looks at other areas of the ocean floor such as the North Atlantic.
- Reference: Magnetic stripes: look again
- Reference: Problems with Plate Tectonics
- Reference: Introduction to Plate Tectonics
Young oceanic sediments can also be explained by a young Earth, with a recent Global Flood. So this proves nothing about Plate tectonics.
Only when interpreted by plate tectonic theory.
- Hot spots leave trails such as volcanic island chains as the plates move over them.
Another possibility is that it is the hot spots that do the moving, as such it proves nothing about Plate tectonics.