RE: Flood Model, batholiths, and science

Karen G. Jensen (kjensen@calweb.com)
Wed, 17 Feb 1999 20:44:58 -0600

>>It's not a matter of being close-minded; it's a matter of recognizing that
>>your unknown "major factors" would violate the known laws of thermodynamics
>>and physics, and so are going to be virtually non-existant.
>
>Isn't that what they were saying when Wegner and a few before him suggested
>continental movement? And in physics when they thought that they had the
>laws described, and there was little to do but confirm them? They had no
>idea that there could be any other way to look at things, and basically
>denied the possibility.
>
>New data, unexpected experimental results, changed the picture. What that
>teaches me is that we probably don't know everything right now, either, and
>perspectives may change still.

Right. Just as unexpected observations in physics led to finding a whole
new realm (QM), and in geophysics a whole new way of looking at the history
of the lithosphere (plate tectonics), explaining the observed parallel
coastlines with the addition of the mid-oceanic ridges, so new experimental
results may come to light that explain the batholith problem in an
unexpected way.

>
>
>Right, anything may change but wishful thinking is the last one to achieve
>such a change. Especially if your "unknown factors" are in violation of
>known laws.

Wegner suggested continental movement without detailing a mechanism (and
really today the proposed mechanisms are still debated and not very
detailed). He was ridiculed and ignored. Same with Bretz, and many
others. It's OK. Happens frequently in science.

By the way, how did the oceans keep from filling in as they opened? If you
calculate the speed at which the oceans, say the Atlantic, opened in the
long-ages model, it is so slow that the crack would have filled with
sediment each year.

Karen