8/3/2019 Continental Drift Against

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/continental-drift-against 1/11

Continental Drift, Plate Tectonics, and the Bible by Stuart E. Nevins, M.S.

Twenty years ago geologists were certain that the data correlated perfectly with the

then-reigning model of stationary continents. The handful of geologists whopromoted the notion of continental drift were accused of indulging inpseudoscientific fancy. Today, the opinion is reversed. The theory of movingcontinents is now the ruling paradigm and those who question it are often referred toas stubborn or ignorant. This "revolution" in our concept of the earth's character is astriking commentary on the human nature of scientists and on the flexibility thatscientists allow in use of the geological data.

Plate Tectonics 

The popular theory of drifting continents and oceans is called "plate

tectonics."1 (Tectonics is the field of geology which studies the processes whichdeform the earth’s crust.) The general tenets of the popular theory may be stated asfollows. The outer lithospheric shell of the earth consists of a mosaic of rigid plates,each in motion relative to adjacent plates. Deformation occurs at the margins of plates by three basic types of motion: horizontal extension, horizontal slipping, andhorizontal compression. Sea-floor spreading occurs where two plates are diverginghorizontally (e.g., the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and East Pacific Rise) with new materialfrom the earth's mantle being added between them to form a new oceanic crust.Transform faulting occurs where one plate is slipping horizontally past another (e.g.,the San Andreas fault of California and the Anatolian fault of northern Turkey).Subduction occurs where two plates are converging with one plate underthrusting

the other producing what is supposed to be compressional deformation (e.g., thePeru-Chile Trench and associated Andes Mountains of South America). Inconformity with evolutionary-uniformitarian assumption, popular plate tectonictheory supposes that plates move very slowly — about 2 to 18 centimeters per year.

 At this rate it would take 100 million years to form an ocean basin or mountainrange.

Fitting of Continents 

The idea that the continents can be fitted together like a jigsaw puzzle to form asingle super continent is an old one. Especially interesting is how the eastern "bulge"

of South America can fit into the southwestern "concavity" of Africa. Recentinvestigators have used computers to fit the continents. The "Bullard fit"2 gives oneof the best reconstructions of how Africa, South America, Europe, and North

 America may have once touched. There are, however, areas of overlap of continentsand one large area which must be omitted from consideration (Central America).There are a number of ways to fit Africa, India, Australia, and Antarctica (only onecan be correct!). Reconstructions have been shown to be geometrically feasible whichare preposterous to continental drift (e.g., rotation of eastern Australia fits nicely intoeastern North America).3 

Those who appreciate the overall fit of continents call the evidence "compelling," while others who note gaps, overlaps, or emissions remain skeptical. It is difficult to

8/3/2019 Continental Drift Against

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/continental-drift-against 2/11

place probability on the accuracy of reconstructions and one's final judgment islargely subjective.

Sea-Floor Spreading 

Evidence suggesting sea-floor spreading is claimed by many geologists to be the mostcompelling argument for plate tectonics. In the ocean basins along mid-ocean ridgesor rises (and in some shallow seas) plates are thought to be diverging slowly andcontinuously at a rate of several centimeters yearly. Molten material from the earth'smantle is injected continuously between the plates and cools to form new crust. The

 youngest crust is claimed to be at the crest of the ocean rise or ridge with older crustfarther from the crest. At the time of cooling, the rock acquires magnetism from theearth's magnetic field. Since the magnetic field of earth is supposed by many geologists to have reversed numerous times, during some epochs cooling oceaniccrust should be reversely magnetized. If sea-floor spreading is continuous, the oceanfloor should possess a magnetic "tape recording" of reversals. A "zebra stripe"

pattern of linear magnetic anomalies parallel to the ocean ridge crest has been notedin some areas and potassium-argon dating has been alleged to show older rocksfarther from the ridge crest.

There are some major problems with this classic and "most persuasive" evidence of sea-floor spreading. First the magnetic bands may not form by reversals of theearth's magnetic field. Asymmetry of magnetic stripes, not symmetry, is the normaloccurrence.4 It has been argued that the linear patterns can be caused by severalcomplex interacting factors (differences in magnetic susceptibility, magneticreversals, oriented tectonic stresses).5 

Second, it is doubtful that the magnetic anomalies have been successfully dated. Wesson6 says that potassium-argon dating when correctly interpreted shows noevidence of increasing age with distance from the ridge system. The greater argoncontent (giving older apparent age) of ocean basalt on the flanks of the ocean ridgescan be explained easily by the greater depth and pressure at the time of solidificationincorporating original magmatic argon.7 

Subduction 

Corollary to the idea of plate accretion by sea-floor spreading is the notion of plate

destruction by subduction. (If sea-floor spreading occurs without plate destruction,the quantity of crust will increase and the volume of the earth must increase!).Subduction theory supposes that converging plates are destroyed below oceantrenches. The island arc or coastal mountain range associated with ocean trenchsubduction zones is claimed to form by compression as one plate is underthrustinganother. The plate that is "subducted" below the trench is thought to be remelted at adepth of up to 700 kilometers. Gravity data indicate low density material of crustalcharacter on the landward side below trenches. (Also, deep and high intensity earthquakes (i.e., earthquakes in Alaska, Peru, Nicaragua, etc.) are assumed toindicate break-up of the underthrust plate.

Two major difficulties are encountered by models supposing subduction to explainthe modern tectonic phenomena in ocean trenches. First, if subduction theory is

8/3/2019 Continental Drift Against

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/continental-drift-against 3/11

correct, there should be compressed, deformed, and thrust faulted sediment on thefloors of trenches. Studies of the Peru-Chile Trench and the eastern AleutianTrench,8 however, show soft flat lying sediment without compression structures.Second, seismic first-motion data indicate that modern earthquakes occurringapproximately under trenches and island arcs are oftentensional , but only rarely 

compressional.9 

The Mysterious Cause of Drift 

 What is the driving force for continental drift and plate tectonics? How is a plate tenthousand kilometers long, several thousand kilometers wide, and one hundredkilometers thick, kept in constant but almost imperceptibly slow movement duringmillions of years? Will slow and continuous application of stress on a plate 100kilometers thick cause it to be torn asunder? How can a plate be broken and thenrammed slowly into the earth's mantle to a depth of 700 kilometers? Here are someof the most baffling problems for plate tectonics.

Evolutionary-uniformitarian explanations for plate motion range from very doubtfulto impossible. A popular idea is that rising convection currents in the earth's mantleexert lateral forces on plates moving them slowly and continuously. The best theory of the viscosity of the earth's mantle, however, shows that large-scale convectionsystems are impossible.10 Three other theories are sometimes mentioned: (1) platesslide by gravity from the elevated mid-ocean ridge to the depressed trench, (2) platesare "pulled" into the mantle below trenches by chemical phase changes duringmelting, (3) plates are "pushed" apart along mid-ocean ridges by slow injection of magma into vertical cracks. Each of these mechanisms (alone or together) cannotovercome the viscous drag at the base of the plate, and cannot explain how thedifference in elevation developed or how the plate boundary originally formed. Theabsence of sufficient mechanism for plate motion, the uncertainty regarding theexistence of sea-floor spreading, and the doubts about subduction cause us toquestion the popular geologic syntheses known as "plate tectonics."

Continental Drift and the Bible 

The Bible framework for earth history makes no statement about continentalsplitting, so it is unnecessary and unwise to take a "Biblical" position on the question.

 When God created the land and sea, the waters were "gathered together unto one

place" (Genesis 1:9), which may imply one large ocean and one large land mass. Thescripture which says "the earth was divided" in the days of Peleg (Genesis 10:25) isgenerally thought to refer to the Tower of Babel division (Genesis 11:1-9) and somesuppose this included continental separation. To believe, however, that thecontinents moved thousands of miles during the Tower of Babel incident withoutcausing another global flood requires a miracle. Similarly, it is doubtful whether thelong day of Joshua can be explained naturalistically by plate tectonics.

If continental separation did occur, the only place within the Bible framework whereit could fit would be during Noah's Flood. The cause of Noah's Flood is described intectonic terms: "all the fountains of the great deep broken up" (Genesis 7:11). The

Hebrew word for "broken up" is baga and is used in other Old Testament passages(Zechariah 14:4; Numbers 16:31) to refer to the geologic phenomena of faulting. The

8/3/2019 Continental Drift Against

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/continental-drift-against 4/11

mechanism for retreat of the Flood waters is also associated with tectonics. Psalm104:6,7 describes the abating of the waters which stood above the mountains; theeighth verse properly translated says, "The mountains rose up; the valleys sank down." It is interesting to note that the "mountains of Ararat" (Genesis 8:4), theresting place of the Ark after the 150th day of the Flood, are in a tectonically active

region at the junction of three lithospheric plates.11 

If continental separation occurred during Noah's Flood, a host of problems in thetectonic dilemma can be solved. Rapid mid-ocean rifting can explain the largequantity of volcanic rocks on the sea floor. The presence of low density crustal rock down to a depth of 700 kilometers within the mantle below trenches can beattributed to rapid underthrusting. The cause for the ancient breaking up of continents can be explained easily by the enormous catastrophic forces of Noah'sFlood which broke the lithosphere into moving plates which for a short timeovercame the viscous drag of the earth's mantle. The amazing similarity of sedimentary Flood layers in the northeastern United States to those of Britain (i.e.,

Carboniferous coal strata and Devonian red sandstones) and the absence of these inthe North Atlantic ocean basin suggests that continental separation occurred towardthe end of the Flood.

Conclusion 

The idea that sea-floor plates form slowly and continuously at a rate of a few centimeters each year as the ocean crust is being rift apart, is not supported by geologic data. The concept of destruction of sea-floor plates over millions of years by slow underthrusting below ocean trenches is also doubtful. Furthermore, the causefor the alleged gradual and uninterrupted motion of plates is an unsolved mystery.Despite these failures in the modern theory of "plate tectonics," the notion that theearth's surface has been deformed at the margins of moving plate-like slabs appearsto be a valid one. The facts indicate that the separation of the continents, rifting of the ocean floor, and underthrusting of ocean trenches, were accomplished by rapidprocesses, not occurring today, initiated by a catastrophic mechanism. Noah's Flood,as described in the Bible, was certainly associated with tectonic processes andprovides the time in the Biblical framework of earth history when continentalseparation may have occurred.

REFERENCES

1 For summaries of the literature see J.F. Dewey, Plate tectonics,  Sci. Amer., v. 226, 1972, p. 56-68 and W. Sullivan, Continents in motion, the new earth debate: New York, McGraw- Hill, 1974, 399 p. Forcollections of important, somewhat technical papers affirming plate tectonics, see: Continentsadrift,readings from Scientific American: San Francisco, W. H. Freeman & Co., 1973, 172 p. and Allan Cox,ed., Plate tectonics and  geomagnetic reversals: San Francisco, W. H. Freeman and Co., 1973, 702 p.For a technical critique of plate tectonics see C. F. Kahle, ed., Plate tectonics - assessments and reassessments: Tulsa, Amer. Assoc. Pet. Geol., Memoir 23, 1974, 514 p.2 E. C. Bullard, J. E. Everett and A. G. Smith, Fit continents around Atlantic, in P.M.S. Blackett et al.,eds., A symposium on continental drift: Roy. Soc.  London, Phil. Trans., ser. A, V. 258, 1965, p. 41-75.3 A. H. Voisey, Some comments on the hypothesis of continental drift, in Continental drift, asymposium: Hobart, Univ. Tasmania, l958, p. 162-171.4

A. A. Meyerhoff and H. A. Meyerhoff, "The new global tectonics": age of linear magnetic anomalies of ocean basis: American Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bulletin, v 56, 1972, p 337-359.5  Ibid ., p. 354-355.

8/3/2019 Continental Drift Against

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/continental-drift-against 5/11

6 P. S. Wesson, Objections to continental drift and plate tectonics:  J. Geol ., v. 80, 1972, p. 191.7 C. S. Noble and J. J. Naughton, Deep-ocean basalts: inert gas content and uncertainties in agedating: Science, v. 162, 1968, p. 265-267. G. B. Dalrymple and J. G. Moore, Argon-40: excess insubmarine pillow basalts from Kilauea Volcano, Hawaii: Science, v. 161, 1968, p. 1132-1135.8 D. W. Scholl, et al ., Peru-Chile Trench sediments and sea-floor spreading: Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull ., v.81, 1970, p. 1339-1360. R. E. Van Huene, Structure of the continental margin and tectonism at the

eastern Aleutian Trench: Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull ., v. 83, 1972, p. 3613-3626.9 W. F. Tanner, Deep-sea trenches and the compression assumption: Amer. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull ., v.57, 1973, p. 2195-2206.10 For a review of arguments against convection currents see P. S. Wesson, loc. cit ., p. 187.11 J. F. Dewey, et al., Plate tectonics and the evolution of the alpine system: Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull ., v.84, 1973, p. 3139.

Thus far the picture painted of Alfred Wegener's contemporaries is not flattering. But this might be unfair. One

would expect some scientists to resist ideas that would invalidate their life's work. But it doesn't explain all

criticism of Wegener's ideas. Wegener presented very compelling arguments for Continental Drift but there were

alternate explanations for some of his observations. To explain the unusual distribution of fossils in the Southern

Hemisphere some scientists proposed there may once have been a network of land bridges between the different

continents. To explain the existence of fossils of temperate species being found in arctic regions, the existence of

warm water currents was proposed. Modern scientists would look at these explanations as even less credible

than those proposed by Wegener, but they did help to preserve the steady state theory.

New theories donot always arrive with all the t's crossed and i's dotted. Wegener did not have an explanation for

how continental drift could have occurred. He proposed two different mechanisms for this drift, one based on the

centrifugal force caused by the rotation of the earth and a 'tidal argument' based on the tidal attraction of the sun

and the moon. These explanations could easily be proven inadequate and opened Wegener to ridicule because

they were orders of magnitude too weak. Wegener really did not believe that he had the explanation for the

mechanism, but that this should not stop discussion of a hypothesis. The scientists of the time disagreed. After

Alfred Wegener died, the Continental Drift Theory was quietly swept under the rug. With the Continental Drift

Theory out of the way, the existing theories of continent formation were able to survive, with little challenge until

the 1960's.

Plate Tectonics is one of the most important geophysical/structural geology subjects today. To

determine the cause of the movement of the plates is the most studied problem. The first

evidence for plate movement was, of course, found by Wegener in 1925. This was a result of a

comparison of the continental edges of South America and South Africa. It was not until the

1950's, however, that Carey (1954) found the remarkably good fit between the continents

using a modelled globe. Wegener's evidence was primarily geological and paleo-climatological.

The model of the Earth developed by the seismologists, at this time, was a liquid iron core

surrounded by a solid mantle with no convection movements. When Elsasser and Bullard (1965)

developed their geomagnetic field theory, postulating that there are convective motions in the

fluid iron core, there was no real objection by the seismologists since the core did not transmit

8/3/2019 Continental Drift Against

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/continental-drift-against 6/11

s-waves, indicating it is a classical fluid. It was not until the development of paleomagnetism

that there was new evidence for continental drift, then later on, geophysical measurements of 

the ocean floor swept away most of the doubts geophysicists had about continental drift. This

now constitutes part of the subject called plate tectonics. Many theories on the mechanism for plate movement have been developed. The most popular

and widely held view is that convection currents below the lithospheric plates, in the mantle,

are responsible for their movement. This involves hot spots and subduction zones. The most

radical view was that that developed by Carey (1954), Heezen (1959) and others , that the

Earth is expanding causing the continents to break up and form plates.

The Plume Hypothesis 

Morgan (1971, 1972) advocates the idea of mantle plumes to explain continental drift. Briefly,

he advocates deep mantle convection in which narrow plumes of deep material rises and

spreads out laterally in the asthenosphere. This convective movement causes stresses on the

bottoms of the lithospheric plates, causing them to move. He suggests that "hot spots", areas

of upwelling visible in the Earth's surface, provide the motive force for continental drift. It is

based on three facts: (1) Most of the hot spots are near a ridge and a hot spot is near each of 

the triple ridge junctions; (2) the gravity and regional high topography suggests that more than

just surface volcanism is involved at each hot spot; and (3) neither rises nor trenches appear

capable of driving the plates, implying that asthenospheric currents acting on the plate

bottoms must exist. He bases his theory on data and observations made worldwide. This

explanation is convincing as his observations are simple and sound.

Runcorn (1980) discounts Morgan's reasoning because it is based on the analogy with plumes in

the asthenosphere; that a plume maintains a small horizontal width as it rises to a very great

height. The reason this occurs in the atmosphere, according to Runcorn, is because the inertia

term in the Navier-Stokes equation is much greater than the viscous force. In the mantle, the

reverse is true.

Gravity Sliding 

Before the evidence for convection became known, geophysicists tried to explain plate

movement as do to their own inherent properties ie. gravity force. Hales (1969) suggested that

the plates were moving away from the mid-oceanic ridges. Isac's and Molnar(1969), after the

discovery that the plates were sinking into the asthenosphere along the trenches, suggested

that since the overhanging part of the plate was colder than the surrounding mantle, it would

also be denser, thus, a downward gravity force might cause the horizontal movement of the

plate. Runcorn (1974) showed that by using magnitude calculations, it is possible a sufficient

force would be produced. Therefore, this theory cannot be rejected on the grounds of 

magnitude, but should be rejected because it is impossible to explain how the process began

and it does not enable any understanding of plate movements. Morgan (1972) rejected this

theory, but on the grounds that small trench bounded plates, such as the Cocos, do not move

faster than the larger Pacific Plate as would be expected.

8/3/2019 Continental Drift Against

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/continental-drift-against 7/11

Convection 

In contrast to the Plume theory of convection (Morgan, 1972), Runcorn (1980) promotes the

theory of large-scale convection. He believes the only way the continents and plates could

move in the regular way they have for the past hundred million years is by convection ion a

large scale cell structure. This convection pattern changed with time from a one cell, to a two

cell, to a three cell and then to a four cell pattern; thereby, explaining the breakup of 

Gondwanaland and Laurasia (Pangea) in only the last 150 million years. Evidence for this is

sparse, however, one reason for large scale convection is that the Earth formed by accretion

with the heavy elements, such as iron, sinking to the center forming a core (Urey, 1951); thus,

the core may be continually growing. Runcorn (1980) says it is expected there would be a

greater geothermal gradient in the lithosphere above the rising convection currents, thus, it

would be possible to find the size and location of the currents. However, the time constant for

the lithosphere 100m thick is about 100 million years in which time a plate would have moved

a considerable distance relative to the origin of a heat source.

Runcorn (1980) uses the shape of the geoid to support this theory. He says, "if a planet departs

from hydrostatic equilibrium on a large scale then there are only two possible explanations.

Either, density anomalies were acquired by the planet in its early history or the distortion of 

the planet is being produced dynamically". In otherwards, "…the geoid is the primary evidence

for convection patterns in the mantle". Jeffrey's (1975) has discovered the Earth's gravitational

field departs from the accepted hydrostatic equilibrium model. However, the shape of the

geoid and its relationship remain open to interpretation.

The Expanding Earth 

Numerous authors, such as Egyed (1957), Cox and Doell (1961), Ward (1963), Creer (1965),

Heezen (1960) and especially Carey (1954, 1970) have supported the theory that continents

have moved apart because of an expanding Earth. Carey based his theory on geologic and

tectonic observations while most other authors have used paleomagnetic data to supplement

his initial theory. Carey (1970) proposes the Earth is made up of eight first order polygons,

analogues to the lithospheric plates, with accretion occurring on all sides of each polygon. He

says sea floor spreading supports his argument, that new crust must be forming between

continents for expansion to occur. Thus, each of them has increased greatly in area,

irrespective of how much or how little swelling of crust along trenches occurred. Thus, this

means the Earth has increased in total surface area by a large amount. Based on the area of 

oceanic crust on each polygon, Carey has calculated the amount of expansion, which has taken

place, is 76%. This equivalent to a 33% increase in radius.

As further evidence, Carey suggests the following: if you stand on any polygon, it has moved

away from every other polygon and if you face about, the distance to each polygon has also

increased. This is assuming the Earth consisted almost entirely of continental crust with

oceanic crust only being produced in the Mesozoic-Phanerozoic. There is evidence that oceanic

crust must have been present before this time, for instance, along Lower Paleozoic accreted

continental margins and in Precambian greenstones.

8/3/2019 Continental Drift Against

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/continental-drift-against 8/11

That oceanic area has increased is consistent with Egyed's observations that each polygon

shows progressively less marine transgression through geologic time. Since oceanic crust can

have twice as much water as continental crust Carey (1970), the theory that the Earth's

surface has increased with time by progressive increase in the area of the ocean basins is

supported.

Island arcs appear to be supportive of a subduction type environment in which case convective

movement on a non-expanding Earth would be the obvious mechanism for plate movement.

However, Carey (1970) denies that island arcs are the result of volcanism along a zone where

oceanic crust is being subducted under continental plate. Instead, because all island arcs are

bowed eastward, he suggests they are tensional features. To illustrate this, Carey used an

analogy with a glacier. On the western side is a dilation zone of new oceanic crust with high

heat flux and repeated horsts and grabens, in contrast with the other side which is passive and

quiet with little disturbed sediments. Dilation rifts occur in similar fashion at the head of a

glacier and the graben arc. Thus, he says, " trenches are dilation rifts". This theory is in stark

contrast to calculations made by various authors, such as Morgan (1972) and Runcorn (1980),

who state the plates are actually colliding, moving in opposite directions. This data is widely

accepted as the norm today.

Carey (1970) makes a bold suggestion when he says his data indicates expansion must be

occurring at the rapid rate of 8mm a year and almost all of it occurring since the Late

Paleozoic-Mesozoic. Almost universally, other authors (Dooley, 1973; Creer, 1965; Egyed, 1960)

have through their calculations based on paleomagnetic data suggest this is impossible. They

have in turn, however, stated that the Earth could expand at a slower rate, upto 0.5mm a

year, for long periods.

These authors, Creer (1965) in particular, suggest the Earth may have been expanding all its

life at a slow rate. Therefore, at the time Pangea began to breakup, the Earth's radius would

have been similar to its present radius. Numerous models have been constructed (Dooley,

Creer) to illustrate how well the continents fit together to form Pangea. All agree that the

best is obtained at present. This destroys Carey's model, which assumes to have a radius 76% of 

the present radius at the time of Pangea breakup. This does not destroy the suggestion that

the Earth is expanding at a slower rate.

Creer (1965) says, "I think expansion should be regarded as something which may been gently,

but persistently, occurring in the background. There may be little obvious geological evidence

of expansion, most of this could easily have been obscured by more vicious and rapid

processes, such as continental drift and orogeny." He goes on to say that to obtain a

satisfactory explanation of expansion we may well have to wait until the origin of the universe

has been successfully deciphered.

Conclusion 

Criticism can be fired at all the theories expounded to explain the mechanism of plate

tectonics. Therefore, it is best to choose the theory, which contains only minor holes and

explains the mechanism in a simple, clear and distinct way.

8/3/2019 Continental Drift Against

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/continental-drift-against 9/11

Convective plume theory, developed by Le Pichon (1968), Morgan (1968), Runcorn (1980) and

others has three major flaws: (1) plate boundaries are not distinct; (2) the condition that each

plate having its own accretion and consumption boundary, as for the case for the African

Plate, is violated; and (3) if the plates are rigid, as assumed, deformation should have

occurred in bottle necks where part of a plate margin was subducted and the rest was not. Of 

course, the presence of island arcs, subduction zones, hot spots and basalt relationships

support the convective-plume theory.

The expansion theory of Cary has major flaws in it, among others, these are: (1) that the Earth

was assumed to consist entirely of continental sialic crust; and (2) that a rapid expansion at a

rate of 8mm/year had to occur in the last 200my; and (3) that the Earth had radius 76% of its

present radius when Pangea broke up.

The slow-expanding Earth theory of Creer (1965) and others is more plausible but lacks

evidence. It does not suggest why the Earth would expand, why continental drift began so late

in the Earth's history or where the energy source for expansion is derived from.

The conclusion is that the convective-plume theory is the most plausible, based on evidence

available.

-First, a brief summation of 100 years of history of geology, for perspective. The brain has room tohear, understand and store many theories, without accepting them initially. History has shown thatoften a discredited and discarded observation has become the new foundation stone of science.

Earth Expansion: The Earth is not of constant size, but is expanding in radius about 1″ 

 per year. The Earth has been expanding for over 250 million years and so has

approximately doubled in radius size. The Earth’s mass has increased and gravity hasincreased over this time. This is not new knowledge but it hasn’t been widely taught. SamCarey — the outsider, but brilliant geologist, from Australia — taught this for over 50 years, withlimited recognition until he died in 2002.

At the turn of the 20th Century (1900’s) there were three (3) main theories to explain the Earth’smajor features such as oceans and mountain ranges. They were the: 1) Constant Size Earth,

the 2)Contracting Earth, and the 3) Expanding Earth. With few facts and mostly opinion andassumptions the Constant Size Earth theory became dogma to the exclusion of the others.

Also at the turn of the 20th century, again there were two (2) competing theories, this time toexplain the location of continents and the location of fossils. The believers of the two theories werethe: 1)Fixists, and the 2) Mobilists. As the names indicate, scientists either thought that the

continents were “fixed” in place and immoveable, or that they had “moved” throughout time.The Fixists then dominated and ridiculed the Mobilists, as in, “What force could possibly movethe continents”! Most scientists then believed in the combination of possibilities to bea Constant size Earth, with Fixed Continents. That was the dominant perception.

Many know that in the 1912 Alfred Wegener wrote and lectured about ContinentalDisplacement, which was demeaned and referred to as Continental Drift. His work was not

accepted until well after his death in 1932. Most scientists didn’t accept his findings until newirrefutable knowledge was gained in the 1960’s. 

8/3/2019 Continental Drift Against

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/continental-drift-against 10/11

Geologists have known for years that tectonic plates affect climate patterns. Now they say that

the opposite is also true, finding that intensifying climate events can move tectonic

plates. Using models based on known monsoonal and plate movement patterns, geologists say that

the Indian Plate has accelerated by about 20% over the past 10 million years. “The significance of this

finding lies in recognising for the first time that long-term climate changes have the potential to act as

a force and influence the motion of tectonic plates,” Australian National University

researcher Giampiero Iaffaldano told COSMOS. 

The researchers plugged information from research on monsoonal patterns and the Indian Plate’s

movement into a model, which indicated that the monsoonal erosion that has battered the eastern

Himalaya Mountains for the past 10 million years erodes enough material to account for the plate’s

counter-clockwise rotation. By gradually shaving off rocks from the eastern flank and decreasing

crustal thickness, the monsoonal rains essentially lighten the load on the eastern part of the Indian

Plate, causing the plate to actually turn (at geological speed).

The scientists ruled out the traditional powerhouse behind tectonic movement — mantle convection— because the mantle’s influence works on longer time frames than 10 million years. It doesn’t

account, for example, for the Indian Plate’s geologically rapid velocity increase of more than 5

millimeters per year since 3.6 million years ago.

Geosyncline uplift:

In geology, geosyncline is a term still occasionally used for a subsiding linear trough that was caused

by the accumulation of sedimentary rock strata deposited in a basin and subsequently compressed,

deformed, and uplifted into a mountain range, with attendant volcanism and plutonism. The filling of a

geosyncline with tons of sediment is accompanied in the late stages of deposition by folding,

crumpling, and faulting of the deposits. Intrusion of crystalline igneous rock and regional uplift along

the axis of the trough generally complete the history of a particular geosyncline. It is then transformed

into a belt of folded mountains. Thick volcanic sequences, together with graywackes (sandstones rich

in rock fragments with a muddy matrix), cherts, and various sediments reflecting deepwater

deposition or processes, are deposited in eugeosynclines , the outer deepwater segment of

geosynclines.

The geosyncline hypothesis is an obsolete concept[1]

 involving vertical crustal movement that has

been replaced by plate tectonics to explain crustal movement and geologic features.

Geosynclines are divided into miogeosynclines and eugeosynclines , depending on the types of

discernible rock strata of the mountain system. A miogeosyncline develops along a continental

margin oncontinental crust and is composed of sediments with limestones, sandstones and shales. 

The occurrences of limestones and well-sorted quartzose sandstones indicate a shallow-water

formation, and such rocks form in the inner segment of a geosyncline. The eugeosynclines consist of

different sequences of lithologies more typical of deep marine environments. Eugeosynclinal rocks

include thick sequences of greywackes, cherts, slates, tuffs and submarine lavas. The eugeosynclinal

8/3/2019 Continental Drift Against

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/continental-drift-against 11/11

deposits are typically more deformed, metamorphosed, and intruded by small to

large igneous plutons. The eugeosynclines often contain exotic flysch and mélange sediments.

An orthogeosyncline  is a linear geosynclinal belt lying between continental and oceanic terranes, and

having internal volcanic belts (eugeosynclinal) and external nonvolcanic belts (miogeosynclinal). Alsoknown as geosynclinal couple or primary geosyncline. A miogeosyncline is the nonvolcanic portion of

an orthogeosyncline, located adjacent a craton. A zeugogeosyncline is a geosyncline in a craton or

stable area within which is also an uplifted area, receiving clastic sediments, also known as yoked

basin. A parageosyncline is an epeirogenic geosynclinal basin located within a craton area. A

exogeosyncline is a parageosyncline that lies along the cratonal border and obtains its clastic

sediments from erosion of the adjacent orthogeosynclinal belt outside the craton. Also known as delta

geosyncline; foredeep; or transverse basin.

Several types of "mobile" geosynclinal zones have also been recognized and named. Among themore common of these are the taphrogeosyncline, a depressed block of the Earth's crust that is

bounded by one or more high-angle faults and that serves as a site of sediment accumulation; and

the paraliageosyncline, a deep geosyncline that passes into coastal plains along continental margins.