Spreading is not: "the exact opposite of subduction"; it's the complementary process that creates new ocean floor. If this didn't happen, there wouldn't be any oceanic basalts because they would have all been subducted billions of years ago.
So you insist on grabbing at meaningless factoids to try to bolster your ridiculous claims? And accusations based on your very simplistic grasp of the processes you think you understand, to deflect attention from your inanity?
The universe is expanding: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=expanding-universe-slows-then-speeds The sun is expanding: http://www.rastko.org.yu/rastko/delo/10899 The earth is expanding: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI Get over it.
Bzzzt. Wrong answer. Some Ophiolites are the result of Mid Ocean spreading, others are not. But tell me, without subduction, how precisely do you account for Ophiolites resting on top of crustal sequences.
Geologists do not state and have never stated that the Earth is constant and unchanging. They have stated and restated one of the fundamental tenets of geological thinking, Hutton's dictum, the present is the key to the past. The many continuous changes affecting the present Earth - weathering, erosion, transportation, deposition, diagenesis, lithification, metamorphism, metasomatism, migmatisation, magma generation, injection and eruption, coupled with the structural processes of subduction, rifting, lateral faulting and isostatic adjusment, associated with plate tectonics - have more recently been supplemented by periodic events, often called catastrophic - such as bolide impact, precipitate climate change, mega eruptions. So 1) Hurrell's statement is incorrect, at least in application to geologists. I cannot say that this may no be a common misapprehension amongst engineers. (The many engineers I have met, while having excellent appreciations of the properties of man made things have had woefully inadequate grasps of the natural. :shrugPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 2) Hurrell's statement, even were it true, in no way supports or even states that the change is one of an expanding Earth. 3) Hurrell appears to have falsely assumed that a Principle of Uniformity means that things must remain uniform, i.e. unchanging. The principle means that change is uniform, cycles are uniform: quite a different thing. See my forum name that is present in every post I make. There are plenty of ancient sea floors to be found around the globe, it is just that they have been welded to continental crust. One of the elegant beauties of plate tectonics was the explanation of these previously unexplained rock suites. But, be my guest, explain the origin of ophiolites without recourse to plate tectonic theory. As an added challenge try to do this without a) Quoting engineers and businessmen rather thant geologists. b) Quoting persons out of context. c) Quoting remarks that are actually in favour of plate tectonics. d) Quoting individuals whose geological knowledge is a century out of date. Trippy, I am perplexed by your comments here. The components of All ophiolites orignate as the result of mid-ocean spreading. Their conversion to ophiolites occurs as the result of subduction/continental collision. If you know of some ophiolites whose components did not arise in this way and whose conversion occured differntly (the latter not something you claimed) I should like to see the citations.
Eh, i'm open to correction on this, but it was my understanding that some Ophiolites had originated as a result of back arc spreading, and differed slightly in composition. But upon reflection, I suspect I may have misunderstood something, no biggy. My point stands though (I think) - that the existence of Ophiolites, and the existence of Ophiolites resting on top of crustal sequences requires subduction.
Nice ad hominem fallacy. You probably think Leonardo Da Vinci was unscientific because he was an artist.
First time for everything I guess. Shock and awe. If subduction was real there would be no ophiolites.
Actually, as stated, you are probably correct. I need to catch up on the current detailed thinking on non MOR crustal extensions. However, the central point remains: plate tectonics provides the best and currently only viable explanation for ophiolites.
Read my post. I very clearly explain to you that this principle relates to application of the same mechanisms through time, mechanisms that produce change, not that things are unchanging. This very basic fact is covered in 'O' level geology courses. The surprising thing about your posting style is that you not only are ignorant, but that you brandish your ignorance as thought it were a strength. Now do you understand that Hutton's principle does not mean things are unchanging? Do you? Come on, for once in this forum concede you are screwed up in your interpretation.
Very easily. Humans are wonderful myth creators. "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." -- Nikola Tesla, physicist, 1934
And you had the audacity to post me a pm on another forum saying I was afraid of debate. Account for the Benioff zones, dipshit. The only myth here is a misfire on your brain's neurons - both of them. Resume Ignore - hopefully for ever.
