View Single Post
  #247  
Old Nov 14th, 2008, 03:02 AM
Alan Clarke Alan Clarke is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Evansville, Indiana USA
Posts: 14

SEA FLOOR SPREADING AND THE MONEY TRAIL
Does the sea floor actually move like a conveyor belt for miles over millions of years?

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Kenny View Post
Wow! Giant clams that grow in the span of 40 days and 40 nights....
David, Welcome to the forum and thank you for your critique of the creation model. Your viewpoints (and doubts) are excellent for carrying the discussion further.

The clams could have been growing for 50 years then afterwards wash to a higher elevation during the flood, just as boulders can relocate in flood waters as shown here. What is interesting is that these giant clam fossils, located high in Peru's Andes mountains, are all in the closed position which indicates they were buried rapidly without the opportunity for their adductor muscles to relax and open the shell as pictured below in non-catastrophic deaths.



Quote:
Originally Posted by David Kenny View Post
BTW, placing markers on the ocean floor (which has been done) and watching them drift apart (which they do) also provides strong evidence of plate tectonics. The animation provided is quite accurate (although it was sped up to show, in seconds, a process that takes thousands of years).
David, I’m not saying that no drifting occurs of tectonic plates. I’m saying that your idea of Pangaea or the sea floor spreading 1000 miles is purely inferential. Even the word “Pangaea” has striking resemblances to a similar disproven theory. People grow about 12” between 0 and 13 months of age. That doesn’t mean they will eventually reach the moon. More important however is a revealing weakness of the “sea floor spreading” theory that can only be discerned through scrutinizing money expenditures, or “following the money trail”. If a theory is weak, it can survive being taught to unsuspecting children and university students but not corporate spenders. A large government can temporarily sustain a flow of currency based on a flawed premise as is evidenced by government-run lotteries. No GNP is produced but dollars are returned to the government coffers just like tax dollars. In a sense, lotteries are a form of taxation to the ignorant (usually poorer people) since the odds are overwhelmingly against the lotto ticket purchaser. (ref. 1, 2) If everyone played the lottery without reservation, then the people would become penniless and indebted to the government. That system would soon collapse with angry rioters demanding a return of their money. Presently, the U.S. has not reached the critical riot stage with government-funded teaching of evolution because the ignorant players in this case still think they are receiving value from their “impossible odds” tickets. The higher echelons of the corporate business world are more savvy (not necessarily moral) and know that purchasing “impossible odds” tickets is not a path to wealth. If a theory does not equate to dollars in the bank, then that theory is useless for corporate strategy. How does “sea floor spreading” theory fare in the corporate world of oil exploration? The theory predicts that oil should not exist in locations where insufficient time has transpired for oil to form. If the theory is correct, then millions of dollars can be saved by not looking in needless places. Unfortunately, this theory steers oil explorers in the wrong direction! The theory fails on not one, but twenty-six counts of explaining known phenomena. Don’t take my word for it but read this NON-CREATIONIST abstract (evolutionist vocabulary abounds) from the American Association of Petroleum Geologists:

Quote:
Arguments favoring drift have been published widely, but facts which refute this concept are published only rarely. Many of the same facts which refute drift also eliminate earth expansion. Many phenomena are not explained by drift. Among them are: (1) the probable restriction of convection currents (if they can exist at all) to the upper mantle low-velocity zone, about 100 to 300 km thick; (2) lack of a driving mechanism for convection; (3) convection-cell geometry in plan view (e.g., several mid-ocean ridges--allegedly the locales of upwelling mantle currents--join or intersect compressional belts--the supposed locales of downturning mantle currents); (4) the steady flow requirement of current convection hypotheses; (5) the distribution of upper mantle density variations determined rom satellite geodesy; (6) the equatorial bulge; (7) lateral chemical composition changes in the upper mantle; (8) preliminary radiometric (K-Ar) dates (obtained in 1968 by the writer from G. D. Afanas'yev of the USSR Academy of Sciences), which range from late Proterozoic (Riphean) through Paleozoic; the dates are from metamorphic rocks of the Mid-Indian-Carlsberg Ridge system; (9) an unexplained Cambrian trilobite fauna from east of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge at 42°21^prime N, 17°12^prime W; (10) the narrow width of high heat-flow bands at mid-ocean ridge crests;. . . (click here for full source)
I used to calibrate oil exploration sensory equipment at Geospace Corp. in Houston, TX. I never heard the term “sea floor spreading” until about 2 weeks ago when doing research for this forum. I was familiar with the uniformitarian Pangaea theory so I immediately smelled a rat. Pangaea largely draws from the fact that the east coast of South America matches the curvature of the west coast of Africa. From this observance, inferences are made that the two continents were once joined eons ago. What these theorists seem to overlook is that the opposite sides of rivers are parallel with one another but that doesn’t mean the river banks were joined together long ago. Pangaea and sea floor spreading stories stretch the imagination to great distances but are dismal in their ability to locate oil and increase corporate earnings. Such is the fate of evolution’s rich heritage, or should I say heritage of destitution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Kenny View Post
I also can't get the image of the Himalaya's , and the Andie's "when still soft" out of my head. What a hoot! Those idiot's who did Mt. Rushmore should have done it when it was still soft.
David, if you re-read my posts, you will not find any place where I state the Himalaya or Andes mountains were formed while soft. Before making such a statement, I would investigate their composition and structure. I did however show photographs of land masses that were shaped while soft. Their smooth bends are not easily explained using long-age mechanisms. Take for instance a “soft” laboratory test material and compare the resultant bends with the “folded” mountain photos.





I would love to see the sandbox model enacted with the weighty top layer of sand removed.
 
Error in my_thread_global_end(): 1 threads didn't exit