Theory of Plate Tectonics Refuted: An Embarrassment to Science?
by Owen Omid Borville
March 3, 2019
Geology
The theory of plate tectonics is supported by mainstream science despite the fact that it has many problems. This theory was proposed as an attempt to introduce a Grand Theory of Everything to explain how the continents and mountains on Earth formed. In addition, this theory was developed over the last several centuries by mainstream scientists until the most modern version was established by the 1970's. Despite the fact that this theory has many problems, the mainstream science establishment continues to endorse this theory because it provides a single model to describe the formation of Earth's mountains and continents. However, it was developed by evolutionists and for evolutionists. In other words, those who developed the theory of plate tectonics had uniformitarian assumptions of old ages and gradual processes over millions of years. The work of James Hutton, Charles Lyell, and Charles Darwin had been firmly established in mainstream science, and plate tectonics provided another "assurance" and "supporting evidence of the old earth and macroevolution. However, mainstream scientists ignore the glaring problems with plate tectonic theory simply because they cannot develop an alternative "grand theory" to explain everything. Despite the widespread acceptance of plate tectonic theory in the mainstream science and academia, evidence for similar tectonic plate movement on other planets in our solar system has not been proven and little evidence exists for such processes on other planets.
The Development of Plate Tectonic Theory
The development of theories of continental drift and plate tectonics in the 20th century helped promote the idea of millions of years by providing a mechanism that seemed to support the uniformitarian time scale. Continental drift was proposed by German scientist Alfred Wegener in 1912, a theory that advocated that the continents of the earth move slowly horizontally at rates of centimeters per year over long time periods. Wegener also proposed that the continents seemed to fit together like a jigsaw puzzle and were once joined together and have since moved apart. The idea of continental drift had been proposed by several scientists and philosophers centuries before Wegener, but Wegener was the first to fully develop and promote the theory successfully. Plate tectonic theory built upon continental drift in the late 20th century by proposing a system of tectonic plates (the earth's crust and upper mantle) that moved horizontally on top of the earth in a variety of directions, including by diverging or rifting away from each other or converging underneath each other in a cyclic uniform pattern as a conveyor belt motion over millions of years.
Creationists have also proposed alternatives to plate tectonics in the late 20th century, including "catastrophic plate tectonics", which advocates horizontal plate movement at rates of meters per second instead of centimeters per year. In 1859, Antonio Snyder proposed a catastrophic and horizontal divergence of tectonic plates during Noah's Flood and today's catastrophic plate tectonic model is based on these ideas. Creationists believe that their version of plate tectonics was set in motion by the opening of the springs of the deep mentioned in the Book of Genesis 7:11, while uniformitarian scientists have yet to provide a suitable initiation mechanism for their version of plate tectonics. Vertical mantle plumes are believed to have rose to the surface and set up convection cells in the mantle layer that initiated plate tectonic movements, but uniformitarian scientists do not have a single trigger mechanism in their explanation.
Catastrophic Plate Tectonics is the most popular tectonic theory supported by many creationists today and the basic concept is almost identical to the uniformitarian version with the exception of the rate of plate movement. Uniformitarian geologists believe that the continents have traveled around the earth for thousands of miles over 4.6 billion years at a rate of centimeters per year and have unified into super-continents and split apart several times. More than a dozen super-continents have been named by uniformitarian geologists. The uniformitarian scientists seem to "make up" millions of years to fit into their time scale by having more proposed super-continents. The catastrophic version of plate tectonics, according to its supporters, is in line with the creationist time frame of 6,000 years. However, not all creationists support plate tectonic theory and object to horizontal movement of tectonic plates.
False Interpretation of Earth's Tectonic Landscape and Continental Drift Theory
The existence of the mid-ocean ridges around the world give strong evidence that Earth’s crust likely split open by some mechanism in the past. The mid-ocean ridge system represents the longest mountain range on earth and is connected throughout the world’s ocean basins. These mid-ocean ridges were discovered in the 20th century. In 1925, the Germans decided to study the seafloor to look for gold. They used echo sounders to map the deep sea topography and discovered the Mid-Atlantic Ridge through the Atlantic to southwest Africa. This ridge was later discovered to extend across the entire earth. In 1953, American physicists discovered the deep canyon that runs between the mid-ocean ridges. In addition to the mid-Atlantic ridge, another mid-ocean ridge is the East Pacific Rise that runs from Mexico southward and westward below Australia and into the Indian Ocean. Mid-ocean ridges also connect the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean ridges into the Indian Ocean ridges.
Alfred Wegener, a German meteorologist, proposed a theory in 1912 that the continents moved horizontally thousands of miles over the Earth’s history. The theory was developed when Wegener noticed that the continents seemed to fit together like a jigsaw puzzle, particularly the continents on either side of the Atlantic Ocean. The theory was proposed several times in the past by others but Wegener published a detailed proposal of continental drift in 1912. At the time, skeptical scientists described continental drift as "pseudoscience" and the theory was not widely accepted at the time. However, the theory was eventually accepted by the 1950’s after discoveries in paleomagnetism and continental drift theory paved the way for Plate Tectonic theory. The mechanism that caused continental drift was an issue for Wegener and an explanation was difficult. In the 1960’s, discoveries of seafloor spreading by mainstream scientists along with Wadati-Benioff Zones gave further evidence to mainstream scientists in support of continental drift. The Wadati-Benioff Zones refer to a zone of earthquakes produced by the continental and oceanic tectonic plate boundary. The emergence of Global Positioning Systems (GPS) eventually made it possible to measure continental drift directly, according to mainstream scientists. However, some scientists including creation scientists continue to be skeptical of continental drift and question the idea of continental drift and the horizontal movement of continents thousands of miles regardless of the time frame.
Plate tectonic theory explains that the Earth’s outer shell, called the lithosphere, is divided into several large plates that slide over the next inner layer, which is the asthenosphere or mantle layer. These plates are part of a hard and rigid shell that surrounds the Earth, similar to the shell of a hard-boiled egg. Mainstream plate tectonic theory believes that these plates move horizontally gradually over the softer and partially molten mantle at a rate of several centimeters per year. This lithosphere is broken at the mid-ocean ridges, which surround the earth and the lithosphere is believed to diverge outward in opposite directions at these ridges. At some plate boundaries, the thinner and denser oceanic plate is believed to be pushed underneath the thicker and less dense continental boundary. The plate is believed to be pushed downward into the mantle, where it is melted and recycled. New ocean floor crust is believed to be created by the new basalt volcanic material at the divergent boundary or mid-ocean ridge. This system of divergent boundaries and convergent boundaries supposedly forms a conveyor-belt-like system that is believed to be in constant motion and has been since the supposed old-earth 4.6 billion year history of the earth. Most mainstream scientists accept the plate tectonic theory model of the Earth’s continents, either the uniformitarian version or the catastrophic plate tectonic theory introduced by creationists. The uniformitarian version includes continental drift movement at a rate of centimeters per year while the catastrophic version includes a movement rate of meters per second.
In 1859, Antonio Snider-Pellegrini proposed that a rapid and horizontal divergent movement occurred during the initiation of the global flood of the Book of Genesis. Catastrophic Plate Tectonics is the creationist version of PT Theory that features an accelerated version of plate tectonic theory and proposes that the continents moved thousands of miles horizontally at a rate in the neighborhood of meters per second instead of centimeters per year. Therefore, according to the catastrophic plate tectonic model, the continents of North America and South America moved or slid away horizontally and rapidly from Europe and Africa starting from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and moving in opposite directions. John Bumgardner, who holds a Phd in geophysics and subscribes to the creationist model, is also a proponent of catastrophic plate tectonics.
So the question remains: is plate tectonic theory pseudoscience or good science? Similar to continental drift, when plate tectonic theory was first proposed, it was called “pseudoscience” but eventually it was accepted. However, if plate tectonic theory is to be accepted the question that must be answered is what initiated Plate Tectonics? This is the main question that needs to be answered by both uniformitarian geologists and creationist geologists. Uniformitarian scientists must also answer what continues to keep plate tectonics in motion after millions of years since they believe in the gradual, uniform plate movement over earth history.
Today, mainstream scientists point toward GPS data that show continents are moving. Australia is supposedly moving northward a few inches per year, according to GPS data but skeptics remain. Is the data within margin of error? Could coastal erosion around Australia offset the data? Under all of the ice in Antarctica there is evidence of a past warm continent. Plate tectonic theory along with continental drift proposes that Antarctica was once located at a different location on earth, possibly near the equator. However skeptics question whether a continent could travel or slide thousands of miles and overcome frictional forces, addition to the immense mass of the continents. Another argument against plate tectonic theory is that this particular phenomenon has not been observed on other planets in the solar system. Not all young-earth creationists accept plate tectonics or some rapid version of it and even some mainstream evolutionist scientists dispute the theory. There are those who have concerns with the serious problems with plate tectonics.
The concept of plate tectonics has serious problems that most mainstream scientists and even most creation scientists routinely ignore. In 1858, Antonio Snider, a French geographer and scientist proposed the possibility of the continental drift or the horizontal motion of the earth's crustal tectonic plates. Snider proposed that all continents were once connected together after he found similar plant fossils on North America and Europe and that the continents broke apart during the flood of the Book of Genesis. After Snider's work several other scientists proposed similar theories and in 1915, Alfred Wegener, the German scientist, developed the modern theory of continental drift that included slow, horizontal motion at a rate of centimeters per year. Wegener originally proposed a rate of 250 centimeters per year for continental drift, but this rate was gradually reduced to 2.5 centimeters per year by uniformitarian scientists.
In the 1950's, paleomagnetism research gave mainstream scientists more evidence for continental drift and led to the modern plate tectonic theory. Specifically, the direction of the mineral grains of iron in the basalt volcanic rock on the seafloor were recorded and showed evidence for horizontal continental movement. In 1962, Henry Hess proposed the theory of seafloor spreading where continents did not float, but interacted with oceanic crust to form mountains, earthquakes, and volcanoes. Hess also proposed the idea of convection cells as the driving force of plate tectonics. However, sceptics of plate tectonics refute these observations and refute the notion that paleomagnetism gives evidence of moving plates. Specifically, paleomagnetic data has been shown to be more complicated than the simplistic artistic renderings commonly featured in textbooks. Magnetic anomaly maps have shown a more complicated picture that does not support horizontal movement.
Plate tectonics is a theory of the earth's crustal plate horizontal motion, including divergence at spreading ridges and convergence at plate boundaries. The magma at spreading ridges supposedly "pushes" the rising magma in opposite directions, or divergent directions until this magma cools into crust and is pushed or converges underneath another tectonic plate and into the mantle, where the plate melts. As the plate is pushed into the subduction zone and melting begins, underlying magma is pushed down and subsequently rises back to the surface as part of a "slab-pull" mechanism forming a convection cell. This slab-pull or "conveyor belt" system is the core of plate tectonic theory.
Initiation Mechanism for Plate Tectonics Uncertain
Many of the problems of plate tectonic theory are explained by Dr. Walt Brown in his book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. A book by Cliff Ollier and Colin Pain also features major problems with plate tectonic theory. The first major problem is the lack of an explanation of the initiation of plate tectonics, or the process or method in which plate tectonics began. Evolutionists and old-earth geologists believe that plate tectonics began about 3.5 billion years ago within the 4.6 billion year time scale. Therefore evolutionists believe that plate tectonics is a process that began well after the formation of the earth, but the method of initiation is a still a mystery. Evolutionists also have no answer for the origin of the tectonic plates themselves and how they broke up, in addition to how the first tectonic plates were subducted. While evolutionists do cite convection cells, an explanation where enough force and power necessary to drive the plate tectonic process is inadequate from the mainstream plate tectonic theory. Most creationists believe that plate tectonics began during the Flood of the Book of Genesis about 4,500 years ago when the springs or fountains of the deep were opened and a catastrophic version of plate tectonics began at a rate of meters per second. However, creationists also have difficulty providing an initiation mechanism for plate tectonics other than divine intervention.
Frictional Forces are a Major Problem for Plate Tectonic Theory
The second major problem with plate tectonic theory is the enormous frictional forces that would need to be overcome to move these rigid, crustal tectonic plates known as the lithosphere over the underlying material, known as the asthenosphere. This lithosphere-asthenosphere boundary is not as smooth as depicted in conceptual artwork, as the tectonic plates that make up the lithosphere are believed to be rigid and extremely heavy, considering their size. Considering the immense weight of a tectonic plate and the frictional forces, what force would be powerful enough to move these plates thousands of miles across the earth? Some geologists now believe that the lithosphere-asthenosphere boundary is not as rigid as previously thought. Particularly, geologists believe that minerals in the mantle layer or the asthenosphere behave differently when great amounts of stress are applied, such as with tectonic forces, and are more fluid than previously thought. However, a great amount of force would still be needed to overcome the weight and frictional forces to move the tectonic plates across the earth horizontally.
Density Differences of Tectonic Plates
A third problem is the density differences at convergent boundaries, as the subducting plate is less dense than the material it is supposedly being pushed into-the upper mantle. The ocean crust has an average density of 3 grams per cubic centimeter while the upper mantle has an average density of 3.4 grams per cubic centimeter. The force needed to push a less dense plate into a denser upper mantle layer would be enormous and plate tectonics advocates have no explanation for where this force would come from.
More Ridges Than Trenches
A fourth problem is that there are more than three times as many ridges than trenches. In other words, while there are 46,000 miles of mid-ocean ridges on earth, there are only a total of 15,000 miles of ocean trenches when their length is combined together. This imbalance of ridges to trenches would cause the earth to expand in volume as the spreading ridges supposedly produce new ocean crust while there would not be enough trench space for the crustal plates to subduct into. Unless the earth is expanding, then something does not add up here.
Curved Shape of Arcs and Trenches
Most volcanic arcs and oceanic trenches have a curved shape. Therefore, how could a tectonic plate subduct or be pushed into a curved-shape trench? For example, the Peru-Chile Trench of South America features a large curve shape. The trench would need to be linear (like folding a paper-back book) in order for subduction to occur or somehow the tectonic plates would have to bend awkwardly to fit into the trench-a very unlikely process.
Seafloor Volcanoes
Why are there so many underwater seafloor volcanoes (seamounts and guyots) in the Pacific Ocean and so few in the Atlantic or Indian Oceans? Most of the seamounts and guyots in the Pacific Ocean are also concentrated in the western portion with few in the eastern half of the ocean. In addition, why are there no seamounts or guyots found inside the deep ocean trenches as there should be if plate tectonics has supposedly been occurring for over 3.5 billion years? Upon study of ocean trenches, researchers have found relatively undisturbed and horizontally layered sediment inside these trenches, which places the catastrophic subduction process into question. (Earth's Catastrophic Past and Future, William Hutton and Jonathan Eagle, 2004). If the subduction process was occurring, one would expect to find sediments catastrophically scraped off and deposited in the trenches, however this is not the case.
Lack of Sediment in the Trenches
Another problem with plate tectonic theory is the lack of scraped-off sediment that should exist when the plate is supposedly subducted into the trench. If subduction has been occurring for 3.5 billion years, where is this scraped-off sediment that should exist in the trenches? Even the catastrophic version of plate tectonics would need to account for this sediment. Mainstream geologists do recognize an accumulation of sediment at the subduction zone trench called the "accretionary wedge", however it is debatable if this sediment is a result of subduction. Why is this sediment observed to be undisturbed and horizontally layered if catastrophically scraped off the tectonic plate? Hutton and Eagle also claim that 44 percent of ocean trenches do not have sediments and the trenches that do contain less than expected amounts to account for billions of years of subduction. Could the sediments found in the ocean trenches originate from another source? Obviously, more research is needed to develop a more comprehensive tectonic plate model that incorporates the creationist time frame and the Genesis Flood.
Plate Tectonics Not Observed on Other Planets
Plate tectonic theory proposes that the earth's tectonic plates continuously spread apart at the mid-ocean ridges and are pushed apart until converging and sinking underneath another tectonic plate into the earth's mantle layer at so called "subduction zones." However, modern plate tectonic theory has serious issues and its supporters must answer why no other planets in the solar system feature such a tectonic system.
Tectonic plate motion is believed to be powered by heat-based, circular rotating convection cells. Creationists have tried to modify the theory into a "quicker version" called Catastrophic Plate Tectonics, which is basically identical to the evolutionist version with the exception of proposed rapidly moving plates at speeds of meters per second instead of centimeters per year to comply with the creationist time scale and continental breakup after the Genesis Flood.
North American and Eurasian Tectonic Plates Connected at Siberia and Alaska
Today, Alaska and Siberia are separated by water-the Bering Strait, however the same continental shelf connects both continents as if Eurasia and North America were the same continent, which is clearly visible on a seafloor map. There is also no uplifted mountains or landforms around the Bering Strait indicating that the landmasses converged toward each other. Why has the scientific community ignored this problem so obvious that a middle-school student could notice it? Could it be that the tectonic plates and continents are actually stationary and not moving horizontally at all?
The idea of stationary continents was once a popular theory that the scientific community has long since discarded. Sea level is believed to have been significantly lower several thousand years ago, creating a land bridge that allowed man and animals to cross from Asia to North America. This land-bridge theory is used both by evolutionists and creationists to explain how humans and animals came to North America. Modern plate tectonic theory is also used by evolutionists to support long ages in the millions of years, which is needed to support evolutionary theory. Evolutionists believe that the continents moved horizontally gradually throughout the proposed 4.5 billion year history of the earth, forming almost a dozen super-continents and breaking apart equally as many times during this time frame, while maintaining a velocity of movement at centimeters per year.
Creationists mostly believe in one super-continent and one continental breakup at speeds of meters per second after the Flood initiation, while some creationists support multiple supercontinents forming at different times within the creationist time scale. The shape of the Atlantic Ocean basin, particularly the continental boundaries and later the mid-Atlantic Ridge, was the original inspiration of the idea of horizontal continental spreading movement. However, could it be that the shape of the mid-Atlantic Ridge is an illusion and there never was any horizontal continental movement? Could it be that the ocean basins sunk after the emergence of the mid-ocean ridges and sub-terranean waters filled the ocean basins to produce today's oceans?
With the numerous sunken continents on earth and stories of many submerged lands, it is evident that the Genesis Flood added much water to the earth's surface. Vertical tectonics produces earthquakes along faults and the mid-ocean ridges while horizontal plate movement is not needed to produce earthquakes. Scientists continue to inquire about the mechanism that set plate tectonic motion into action while frictional forces, density differences at subduction zones, having three times as many ridges than trenches for tectonic plates to subduct into, having curved shaped trenches and planar plates, having volcanoes on the wrong side of the tectonic plate subduction zone, and having a lack of sediment in trenches should be enough to question the validity of plate tectonic theory.
Modern plate tectonic theory has become such an established doctrine in both the secular science world and the creationist world that new ideas are difficult to establish. However, real science should be open to new ideas and refusing to consider new ideas places a limitation on the advancement of science. Creationists have accused secular scientists of being closed-minded to new ideas, however the modern creationist movement should consider its own advice. New ideas are what make science exciting and the pressure to conform to established doctrines removes some of that excitement and even contradicts the scientific method itself.
Alternative Theory: The Hydroplate Model
In an alternate tectonic model, creationist Dr. Walt Brown proposed a "hydroplate model" where, tectonic plates slid down the mid-ocean ridges by gravity after continental breakup after the Genesis Flood and the release of much sub-terranean water that flooded the earth, while denying the existence of subduction zones. One glaring issue has been mostly ignored by the scientific community in all of these tectonic models: How could the North American and Eurasian continents break apart at the mid-Atlantic ridge and spread apart thousands of miles, either powered by convection cells or gravity, if these two continents are still connected at the other end-the Pacific end?
The Hydroplate theory proposes that the continents “floated or slid down” each side of the mid-ocean ridges as hydro-plates as this ridge opened up, most noticeably inside the Atlantic Ocean Basin. A large subsurface layer of water is proposed to have encircled the earth and was breached open to initiate the Genesis Flood. A large amount of water was released from the subsurface through the mid-ocean ridges and this water converted the plates into hydroplates and allowed the continents to slide down the ridges. As the plates slid in opposite directions, the underlying layer rose to form the ridge as pressure was released. Frictional forces between tectonic plates (lithosphere-asthenosphere) have some questioning whether these plates can slide at all and if so, what is causing them to slide? The hydroplate theory says that gravity causes the hydroplates to slide but it is questionable if the gravitational forces could overcome the frictional forces.
The Origin of Continental Crust: The Greatest Mystery in Geology
The origin of continental crust is the greatest mystery in geology. What is the origin of continental crust that makes up dry land on Earth? How was it formed? Some scientists claim that continental crust was created at the mid-ocean ridges just like oceanic crust, according to plate tectonic theory. However, continental crust varies greatly from oceanic crust. Continental crust is thicker (35 to 40 kilometers) and less dense than oceanic crust and is composed mostly of granite, which is composed mostly of the minerals quartz and feldspar. Oceanic crust is much thinner (7 to 10 kilometers) and denser, is composed of mostly of iron-rich basaltic rock, and is produced from lava emerging from inside the earth onto the ocean basin surface to form a spreading ridge, according to plate tectonic theory. As the mid-ocean ridges exert basalt lava, the ocean basins are covered in this basaltic lava. However, continental crust and fossils have been discovered inside various places in the ocean basins, including the South Atlantic.
Most of the ocean floor has not been explored, considering that it covers more than 70 percent of the Earth surface and more exploration is needed to discover what lies beneath the oceans. While there are many volcanoes inside the ocean basins and this volcanic material has been spilled onto the ocean floor surface, there could be more granite underneath the basalt and volcanic material.
Mantle plumes are a possible explanation for the origin of not only the continental crust but also for the mountain ranges. Molten magma rises from the mantle layer through fractures in the Earth's crust and as the magma reaches the surface and spills out, basalt forms. However, when the magma stays inside the subsurface, this large amount of material can uplift the land surface, causing not only mountains to uplift but also the continents themselves to uplift. As continental mountains are composed primarily of granite, the idea of mantle plumes can give an explanation of the origin of mountains and continents. Geologists recognize that granite forms when magma cools slowly inside the subsurface in contrast to basalt, which cools quickly as magma is spilled onto the surface. Some have proposed the concept of mantle plumes for the origin of mountains and continents as an alternative to plate tectonic theory, which claims that mountains and continents are uplifted by tectonic forces caused by plate tectonics, including folding caused by crustal plates being pushed against each other.
Another theory is based on the Book of Genesis, where subterranean water was released from the mid-ocean ridges (the fountains of the deep) along with volcanic material and as this material was released, the ocean basins sunk, which caused the continents to rise. Mantle plumes could be incorporated with this model at the crustal boundaries causing numerous mountain ranges to form and causing uplift to the continent. The mystery of the origin of continental crust continues.
Geosyncline Theory and Stationary Continents
The concept of geosynclines contains the idea of bowl shaped depressions filled with sediment and was commonly accepted before the development of plate tectonic theory. The geosyncline concept was developed in the mid-19th century by American geologists James Hall and James Dwight Dana during study of the Appalachian Mountains. Geosynclines were proposed to be deepening and filling basins resulting from crustal contraction and cooling of the Earth. The geosyncline concept was widely accepted for the origin of mountain ranges until the development of plate tectonics in the 1960s, particularly the subduction zone and continental collisions.
Despite the mainstream acceptance of plate tectonics, some continue to believe that the continents have remained stationary and did not move horizontally thousands of miles over the history of the earth. Proponents of stationary continents give explanations such as the frictional forces preventing large continental plates from moving thousands of miles. While the plate boundaries have been observed by modern radar and photography, further evidence is needed to show that the continents are continuously moving. The many fractures in the Earth’s surface and near plate boundaries show evidence of vertical tectonics, but more evidence is needed to show that the plates are moving horizontally.
The Impact Theory (Shock Theory)
Another theory proposes that a large planetary body or meteorite hit the earth and initiated the mid-ocean ridge breakup. This theory could be combined with either plate tectonic theory or the hydroplate theory. The impact of a large planetary body would have enough energy to cause the earth to break open at the mid-ocean ridges according to this theory. This theory is also related to the theory that a planetary collision with earth produced the moon. A smaller planet could have collided with the earth and possibly have been swallowed by the earth and a portion of the earth on the other side could have been ejected and became the moon. Or the moon itself could have hit the earth, bounced off and continued to stay in the Earth’s orbit. However, creationists have strong reservations against the impact model associated with the moon's origin, particularly because of its near circular orbit around the earth makes an impact unlikely. This theory also doesn't explain what would keep plate tectonics in motion for billions of years and therefore is an evidence for the youth of the earth.
Intraplate Earthquakes and Tectonic Activity
The occurrence of tectonic activity on the Earth's crust away from tectonic plate boundaries is a major problem for plate tectonic theory. According to mainstream plate tectonic theory, most major tectonic activity should occur at plate tectonic boundaries. However, major tectonic activity has been recorded away from major tectonic boundaries. Many major tectonic faults exists outside the major tectonic boundaries, such as the New Madrid Fault in North America. In addition, a major earthquake occurred at Charleston, South Carolina in the late 19th century. Also the geysers and volcanic activity at the Yellowstone National Park "hot spot" occur in the middle of the North American tectonic plate. The Hawaii hot spot occurs in the middle of the Pacific Plate. The Icelandic hot spot occurs on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, but why just this one location? Why are there no other hot spots located on the Mid-Ocean Ridge System?
Grand Theories of Everything
There is a tendency in mainstream science to promote "theories of everything" that can be accepted by the mass population. However, these theories tend to be simplistic and in reality do not cover the entire story. In other words, concepts such as plate tectonics are much more complicated than described in science textbooks and many real-world observations in the field do not fit the model. Theories of continental drift and plate tectonics are similar to other "theories of everything" in science, such as the Big Bang model for the origin of the universe and the molecule-to-man macroevolution used by mainstream scientists to explain the origin of life on earth. There are many problems with the Big Bang and macroevolution theories that mainstream scientists continue to ignore for convenience. Some mainstream scientists point out these problems but most scientists ignore these problems and stick to the models simply as a result of the difficulty in addressing these problems.
Mainstream scientists are also dedicated to preserving the old-earth and old-universe models, or ages of more than 4.5 billion years for the earth and the solar system while promoting an age of more than 13 billion years for the universe. Any scientific discovery that contradicts these ages is ignored by mainstream scientists in order to fit the established models. Identifying the problems with plate tectonics, macroevolution, or the Big Bang models could expose evidence for a younger earth or universe. Therefore, mainstream scientists ignore problems with their "theories of everything" in order to preserve their time frame in the billions of years.
Brown, Walt. In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood.
Ollier, Cliff and Colin Pain. The Origin of Mountains.
Hutton, William and Eagle, Jonathan. 2004. Earth's Catastrophic Past and Future.
by Owen Omid Borville
March 3, 2019
Geology
The theory of plate tectonics is supported by mainstream science despite the fact that it has many problems. This theory was proposed as an attempt to introduce a Grand Theory of Everything to explain how the continents and mountains on Earth formed. In addition, this theory was developed over the last several centuries by mainstream scientists until the most modern version was established by the 1970's. Despite the fact that this theory has many problems, the mainstream science establishment continues to endorse this theory because it provides a single model to describe the formation of Earth's mountains and continents. However, it was developed by evolutionists and for evolutionists. In other words, those who developed the theory of plate tectonics had uniformitarian assumptions of old ages and gradual processes over millions of years. The work of James Hutton, Charles Lyell, and Charles Darwin had been firmly established in mainstream science, and plate tectonics provided another "assurance" and "supporting evidence of the old earth and macroevolution. However, mainstream scientists ignore the glaring problems with plate tectonic theory simply because they cannot develop an alternative "grand theory" to explain everything. Despite the widespread acceptance of plate tectonic theory in the mainstream science and academia, evidence for similar tectonic plate movement on other planets in our solar system has not been proven and little evidence exists for such processes on other planets.
The Development of Plate Tectonic Theory
The development of theories of continental drift and plate tectonics in the 20th century helped promote the idea of millions of years by providing a mechanism that seemed to support the uniformitarian time scale. Continental drift was proposed by German scientist Alfred Wegener in 1912, a theory that advocated that the continents of the earth move slowly horizontally at rates of centimeters per year over long time periods. Wegener also proposed that the continents seemed to fit together like a jigsaw puzzle and were once joined together and have since moved apart. The idea of continental drift had been proposed by several scientists and philosophers centuries before Wegener, but Wegener was the first to fully develop and promote the theory successfully. Plate tectonic theory built upon continental drift in the late 20th century by proposing a system of tectonic plates (the earth's crust and upper mantle) that moved horizontally on top of the earth in a variety of directions, including by diverging or rifting away from each other or converging underneath each other in a cyclic uniform pattern as a conveyor belt motion over millions of years.
Creationists have also proposed alternatives to plate tectonics in the late 20th century, including "catastrophic plate tectonics", which advocates horizontal plate movement at rates of meters per second instead of centimeters per year. In 1859, Antonio Snyder proposed a catastrophic and horizontal divergence of tectonic plates during Noah's Flood and today's catastrophic plate tectonic model is based on these ideas. Creationists believe that their version of plate tectonics was set in motion by the opening of the springs of the deep mentioned in the Book of Genesis 7:11, while uniformitarian scientists have yet to provide a suitable initiation mechanism for their version of plate tectonics. Vertical mantle plumes are believed to have rose to the surface and set up convection cells in the mantle layer that initiated plate tectonic movements, but uniformitarian scientists do not have a single trigger mechanism in their explanation.
Catastrophic Plate Tectonics is the most popular tectonic theory supported by many creationists today and the basic concept is almost identical to the uniformitarian version with the exception of the rate of plate movement. Uniformitarian geologists believe that the continents have traveled around the earth for thousands of miles over 4.6 billion years at a rate of centimeters per year and have unified into super-continents and split apart several times. More than a dozen super-continents have been named by uniformitarian geologists. The uniformitarian scientists seem to "make up" millions of years to fit into their time scale by having more proposed super-continents. The catastrophic version of plate tectonics, according to its supporters, is in line with the creationist time frame of 6,000 years. However, not all creationists support plate tectonic theory and object to horizontal movement of tectonic plates.
False Interpretation of Earth's Tectonic Landscape and Continental Drift Theory
The existence of the mid-ocean ridges around the world give strong evidence that Earth’s crust likely split open by some mechanism in the past. The mid-ocean ridge system represents the longest mountain range on earth and is connected throughout the world’s ocean basins. These mid-ocean ridges were discovered in the 20th century. In 1925, the Germans decided to study the seafloor to look for gold. They used echo sounders to map the deep sea topography and discovered the Mid-Atlantic Ridge through the Atlantic to southwest Africa. This ridge was later discovered to extend across the entire earth. In 1953, American physicists discovered the deep canyon that runs between the mid-ocean ridges. In addition to the mid-Atlantic ridge, another mid-ocean ridge is the East Pacific Rise that runs from Mexico southward and westward below Australia and into the Indian Ocean. Mid-ocean ridges also connect the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean ridges into the Indian Ocean ridges.
Alfred Wegener, a German meteorologist, proposed a theory in 1912 that the continents moved horizontally thousands of miles over the Earth’s history. The theory was developed when Wegener noticed that the continents seemed to fit together like a jigsaw puzzle, particularly the continents on either side of the Atlantic Ocean. The theory was proposed several times in the past by others but Wegener published a detailed proposal of continental drift in 1912. At the time, skeptical scientists described continental drift as "pseudoscience" and the theory was not widely accepted at the time. However, the theory was eventually accepted by the 1950’s after discoveries in paleomagnetism and continental drift theory paved the way for Plate Tectonic theory. The mechanism that caused continental drift was an issue for Wegener and an explanation was difficult. In the 1960’s, discoveries of seafloor spreading by mainstream scientists along with Wadati-Benioff Zones gave further evidence to mainstream scientists in support of continental drift. The Wadati-Benioff Zones refer to a zone of earthquakes produced by the continental and oceanic tectonic plate boundary. The emergence of Global Positioning Systems (GPS) eventually made it possible to measure continental drift directly, according to mainstream scientists. However, some scientists including creation scientists continue to be skeptical of continental drift and question the idea of continental drift and the horizontal movement of continents thousands of miles regardless of the time frame.
Plate tectonic theory explains that the Earth’s outer shell, called the lithosphere, is divided into several large plates that slide over the next inner layer, which is the asthenosphere or mantle layer. These plates are part of a hard and rigid shell that surrounds the Earth, similar to the shell of a hard-boiled egg. Mainstream plate tectonic theory believes that these plates move horizontally gradually over the softer and partially molten mantle at a rate of several centimeters per year. This lithosphere is broken at the mid-ocean ridges, which surround the earth and the lithosphere is believed to diverge outward in opposite directions at these ridges. At some plate boundaries, the thinner and denser oceanic plate is believed to be pushed underneath the thicker and less dense continental boundary. The plate is believed to be pushed downward into the mantle, where it is melted and recycled. New ocean floor crust is believed to be created by the new basalt volcanic material at the divergent boundary or mid-ocean ridge. This system of divergent boundaries and convergent boundaries supposedly forms a conveyor-belt-like system that is believed to be in constant motion and has been since the supposed old-earth 4.6 billion year history of the earth. Most mainstream scientists accept the plate tectonic theory model of the Earth’s continents, either the uniformitarian version or the catastrophic plate tectonic theory introduced by creationists. The uniformitarian version includes continental drift movement at a rate of centimeters per year while the catastrophic version includes a movement rate of meters per second.
In 1859, Antonio Snider-Pellegrini proposed that a rapid and horizontal divergent movement occurred during the initiation of the global flood of the Book of Genesis. Catastrophic Plate Tectonics is the creationist version of PT Theory that features an accelerated version of plate tectonic theory and proposes that the continents moved thousands of miles horizontally at a rate in the neighborhood of meters per second instead of centimeters per year. Therefore, according to the catastrophic plate tectonic model, the continents of North America and South America moved or slid away horizontally and rapidly from Europe and Africa starting from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and moving in opposite directions. John Bumgardner, who holds a Phd in geophysics and subscribes to the creationist model, is also a proponent of catastrophic plate tectonics.
So the question remains: is plate tectonic theory pseudoscience or good science? Similar to continental drift, when plate tectonic theory was first proposed, it was called “pseudoscience” but eventually it was accepted. However, if plate tectonic theory is to be accepted the question that must be answered is what initiated Plate Tectonics? This is the main question that needs to be answered by both uniformitarian geologists and creationist geologists. Uniformitarian scientists must also answer what continues to keep plate tectonics in motion after millions of years since they believe in the gradual, uniform plate movement over earth history.
Today, mainstream scientists point toward GPS data that show continents are moving. Australia is supposedly moving northward a few inches per year, according to GPS data but skeptics remain. Is the data within margin of error? Could coastal erosion around Australia offset the data? Under all of the ice in Antarctica there is evidence of a past warm continent. Plate tectonic theory along with continental drift proposes that Antarctica was once located at a different location on earth, possibly near the equator. However skeptics question whether a continent could travel or slide thousands of miles and overcome frictional forces, addition to the immense mass of the continents. Another argument against plate tectonic theory is that this particular phenomenon has not been observed on other planets in the solar system. Not all young-earth creationists accept plate tectonics or some rapid version of it and even some mainstream evolutionist scientists dispute the theory. There are those who have concerns with the serious problems with plate tectonics.
The concept of plate tectonics has serious problems that most mainstream scientists and even most creation scientists routinely ignore. In 1858, Antonio Snider, a French geographer and scientist proposed the possibility of the continental drift or the horizontal motion of the earth's crustal tectonic plates. Snider proposed that all continents were once connected together after he found similar plant fossils on North America and Europe and that the continents broke apart during the flood of the Book of Genesis. After Snider's work several other scientists proposed similar theories and in 1915, Alfred Wegener, the German scientist, developed the modern theory of continental drift that included slow, horizontal motion at a rate of centimeters per year. Wegener originally proposed a rate of 250 centimeters per year for continental drift, but this rate was gradually reduced to 2.5 centimeters per year by uniformitarian scientists.
In the 1950's, paleomagnetism research gave mainstream scientists more evidence for continental drift and led to the modern plate tectonic theory. Specifically, the direction of the mineral grains of iron in the basalt volcanic rock on the seafloor were recorded and showed evidence for horizontal continental movement. In 1962, Henry Hess proposed the theory of seafloor spreading where continents did not float, but interacted with oceanic crust to form mountains, earthquakes, and volcanoes. Hess also proposed the idea of convection cells as the driving force of plate tectonics. However, sceptics of plate tectonics refute these observations and refute the notion that paleomagnetism gives evidence of moving plates. Specifically, paleomagnetic data has been shown to be more complicated than the simplistic artistic renderings commonly featured in textbooks. Magnetic anomaly maps have shown a more complicated picture that does not support horizontal movement.
Plate tectonics is a theory of the earth's crustal plate horizontal motion, including divergence at spreading ridges and convergence at plate boundaries. The magma at spreading ridges supposedly "pushes" the rising magma in opposite directions, or divergent directions until this magma cools into crust and is pushed or converges underneath another tectonic plate and into the mantle, where the plate melts. As the plate is pushed into the subduction zone and melting begins, underlying magma is pushed down and subsequently rises back to the surface as part of a "slab-pull" mechanism forming a convection cell. This slab-pull or "conveyor belt" system is the core of plate tectonic theory.
Initiation Mechanism for Plate Tectonics Uncertain
Many of the problems of plate tectonic theory are explained by Dr. Walt Brown in his book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. A book by Cliff Ollier and Colin Pain also features major problems with plate tectonic theory. The first major problem is the lack of an explanation of the initiation of plate tectonics, or the process or method in which plate tectonics began. Evolutionists and old-earth geologists believe that plate tectonics began about 3.5 billion years ago within the 4.6 billion year time scale. Therefore evolutionists believe that plate tectonics is a process that began well after the formation of the earth, but the method of initiation is a still a mystery. Evolutionists also have no answer for the origin of the tectonic plates themselves and how they broke up, in addition to how the first tectonic plates were subducted. While evolutionists do cite convection cells, an explanation where enough force and power necessary to drive the plate tectonic process is inadequate from the mainstream plate tectonic theory. Most creationists believe that plate tectonics began during the Flood of the Book of Genesis about 4,500 years ago when the springs or fountains of the deep were opened and a catastrophic version of plate tectonics began at a rate of meters per second. However, creationists also have difficulty providing an initiation mechanism for plate tectonics other than divine intervention.
Frictional Forces are a Major Problem for Plate Tectonic Theory
The second major problem with plate tectonic theory is the enormous frictional forces that would need to be overcome to move these rigid, crustal tectonic plates known as the lithosphere over the underlying material, known as the asthenosphere. This lithosphere-asthenosphere boundary is not as smooth as depicted in conceptual artwork, as the tectonic plates that make up the lithosphere are believed to be rigid and extremely heavy, considering their size. Considering the immense weight of a tectonic plate and the frictional forces, what force would be powerful enough to move these plates thousands of miles across the earth? Some geologists now believe that the lithosphere-asthenosphere boundary is not as rigid as previously thought. Particularly, geologists believe that minerals in the mantle layer or the asthenosphere behave differently when great amounts of stress are applied, such as with tectonic forces, and are more fluid than previously thought. However, a great amount of force would still be needed to overcome the weight and frictional forces to move the tectonic plates across the earth horizontally.
Density Differences of Tectonic Plates
A third problem is the density differences at convergent boundaries, as the subducting plate is less dense than the material it is supposedly being pushed into-the upper mantle. The ocean crust has an average density of 3 grams per cubic centimeter while the upper mantle has an average density of 3.4 grams per cubic centimeter. The force needed to push a less dense plate into a denser upper mantle layer would be enormous and plate tectonics advocates have no explanation for where this force would come from.
More Ridges Than Trenches
A fourth problem is that there are more than three times as many ridges than trenches. In other words, while there are 46,000 miles of mid-ocean ridges on earth, there are only a total of 15,000 miles of ocean trenches when their length is combined together. This imbalance of ridges to trenches would cause the earth to expand in volume as the spreading ridges supposedly produce new ocean crust while there would not be enough trench space for the crustal plates to subduct into. Unless the earth is expanding, then something does not add up here.
Curved Shape of Arcs and Trenches
Most volcanic arcs and oceanic trenches have a curved shape. Therefore, how could a tectonic plate subduct or be pushed into a curved-shape trench? For example, the Peru-Chile Trench of South America features a large curve shape. The trench would need to be linear (like folding a paper-back book) in order for subduction to occur or somehow the tectonic plates would have to bend awkwardly to fit into the trench-a very unlikely process.
Seafloor Volcanoes
Why are there so many underwater seafloor volcanoes (seamounts and guyots) in the Pacific Ocean and so few in the Atlantic or Indian Oceans? Most of the seamounts and guyots in the Pacific Ocean are also concentrated in the western portion with few in the eastern half of the ocean. In addition, why are there no seamounts or guyots found inside the deep ocean trenches as there should be if plate tectonics has supposedly been occurring for over 3.5 billion years? Upon study of ocean trenches, researchers have found relatively undisturbed and horizontally layered sediment inside these trenches, which places the catastrophic subduction process into question. (Earth's Catastrophic Past and Future, William Hutton and Jonathan Eagle, 2004). If the subduction process was occurring, one would expect to find sediments catastrophically scraped off and deposited in the trenches, however this is not the case.
Lack of Sediment in the Trenches
Another problem with plate tectonic theory is the lack of scraped-off sediment that should exist when the plate is supposedly subducted into the trench. If subduction has been occurring for 3.5 billion years, where is this scraped-off sediment that should exist in the trenches? Even the catastrophic version of plate tectonics would need to account for this sediment. Mainstream geologists do recognize an accumulation of sediment at the subduction zone trench called the "accretionary wedge", however it is debatable if this sediment is a result of subduction. Why is this sediment observed to be undisturbed and horizontally layered if catastrophically scraped off the tectonic plate? Hutton and Eagle also claim that 44 percent of ocean trenches do not have sediments and the trenches that do contain less than expected amounts to account for billions of years of subduction. Could the sediments found in the ocean trenches originate from another source? Obviously, more research is needed to develop a more comprehensive tectonic plate model that incorporates the creationist time frame and the Genesis Flood.
Plate Tectonics Not Observed on Other Planets
Plate tectonic theory proposes that the earth's tectonic plates continuously spread apart at the mid-ocean ridges and are pushed apart until converging and sinking underneath another tectonic plate into the earth's mantle layer at so called "subduction zones." However, modern plate tectonic theory has serious issues and its supporters must answer why no other planets in the solar system feature such a tectonic system.
Tectonic plate motion is believed to be powered by heat-based, circular rotating convection cells. Creationists have tried to modify the theory into a "quicker version" called Catastrophic Plate Tectonics, which is basically identical to the evolutionist version with the exception of proposed rapidly moving plates at speeds of meters per second instead of centimeters per year to comply with the creationist time scale and continental breakup after the Genesis Flood.
North American and Eurasian Tectonic Plates Connected at Siberia and Alaska
Today, Alaska and Siberia are separated by water-the Bering Strait, however the same continental shelf connects both continents as if Eurasia and North America were the same continent, which is clearly visible on a seafloor map. There is also no uplifted mountains or landforms around the Bering Strait indicating that the landmasses converged toward each other. Why has the scientific community ignored this problem so obvious that a middle-school student could notice it? Could it be that the tectonic plates and continents are actually stationary and not moving horizontally at all?
The idea of stationary continents was once a popular theory that the scientific community has long since discarded. Sea level is believed to have been significantly lower several thousand years ago, creating a land bridge that allowed man and animals to cross from Asia to North America. This land-bridge theory is used both by evolutionists and creationists to explain how humans and animals came to North America. Modern plate tectonic theory is also used by evolutionists to support long ages in the millions of years, which is needed to support evolutionary theory. Evolutionists believe that the continents moved horizontally gradually throughout the proposed 4.5 billion year history of the earth, forming almost a dozen super-continents and breaking apart equally as many times during this time frame, while maintaining a velocity of movement at centimeters per year.
Creationists mostly believe in one super-continent and one continental breakup at speeds of meters per second after the Flood initiation, while some creationists support multiple supercontinents forming at different times within the creationist time scale. The shape of the Atlantic Ocean basin, particularly the continental boundaries and later the mid-Atlantic Ridge, was the original inspiration of the idea of horizontal continental spreading movement. However, could it be that the shape of the mid-Atlantic Ridge is an illusion and there never was any horizontal continental movement? Could it be that the ocean basins sunk after the emergence of the mid-ocean ridges and sub-terranean waters filled the ocean basins to produce today's oceans?
With the numerous sunken continents on earth and stories of many submerged lands, it is evident that the Genesis Flood added much water to the earth's surface. Vertical tectonics produces earthquakes along faults and the mid-ocean ridges while horizontal plate movement is not needed to produce earthquakes. Scientists continue to inquire about the mechanism that set plate tectonic motion into action while frictional forces, density differences at subduction zones, having three times as many ridges than trenches for tectonic plates to subduct into, having curved shaped trenches and planar plates, having volcanoes on the wrong side of the tectonic plate subduction zone, and having a lack of sediment in trenches should be enough to question the validity of plate tectonic theory.
Modern plate tectonic theory has become such an established doctrine in both the secular science world and the creationist world that new ideas are difficult to establish. However, real science should be open to new ideas and refusing to consider new ideas places a limitation on the advancement of science. Creationists have accused secular scientists of being closed-minded to new ideas, however the modern creationist movement should consider its own advice. New ideas are what make science exciting and the pressure to conform to established doctrines removes some of that excitement and even contradicts the scientific method itself.
Alternative Theory: The Hydroplate Model
In an alternate tectonic model, creationist Dr. Walt Brown proposed a "hydroplate model" where, tectonic plates slid down the mid-ocean ridges by gravity after continental breakup after the Genesis Flood and the release of much sub-terranean water that flooded the earth, while denying the existence of subduction zones. One glaring issue has been mostly ignored by the scientific community in all of these tectonic models: How could the North American and Eurasian continents break apart at the mid-Atlantic ridge and spread apart thousands of miles, either powered by convection cells or gravity, if these two continents are still connected at the other end-the Pacific end?
The Hydroplate theory proposes that the continents “floated or slid down” each side of the mid-ocean ridges as hydro-plates as this ridge opened up, most noticeably inside the Atlantic Ocean Basin. A large subsurface layer of water is proposed to have encircled the earth and was breached open to initiate the Genesis Flood. A large amount of water was released from the subsurface through the mid-ocean ridges and this water converted the plates into hydroplates and allowed the continents to slide down the ridges. As the plates slid in opposite directions, the underlying layer rose to form the ridge as pressure was released. Frictional forces between tectonic plates (lithosphere-asthenosphere) have some questioning whether these plates can slide at all and if so, what is causing them to slide? The hydroplate theory says that gravity causes the hydroplates to slide but it is questionable if the gravitational forces could overcome the frictional forces.
The Origin of Continental Crust: The Greatest Mystery in Geology
The origin of continental crust is the greatest mystery in geology. What is the origin of continental crust that makes up dry land on Earth? How was it formed? Some scientists claim that continental crust was created at the mid-ocean ridges just like oceanic crust, according to plate tectonic theory. However, continental crust varies greatly from oceanic crust. Continental crust is thicker (35 to 40 kilometers) and less dense than oceanic crust and is composed mostly of granite, which is composed mostly of the minerals quartz and feldspar. Oceanic crust is much thinner (7 to 10 kilometers) and denser, is composed of mostly of iron-rich basaltic rock, and is produced from lava emerging from inside the earth onto the ocean basin surface to form a spreading ridge, according to plate tectonic theory. As the mid-ocean ridges exert basalt lava, the ocean basins are covered in this basaltic lava. However, continental crust and fossils have been discovered inside various places in the ocean basins, including the South Atlantic.
Most of the ocean floor has not been explored, considering that it covers more than 70 percent of the Earth surface and more exploration is needed to discover what lies beneath the oceans. While there are many volcanoes inside the ocean basins and this volcanic material has been spilled onto the ocean floor surface, there could be more granite underneath the basalt and volcanic material.
Mantle plumes are a possible explanation for the origin of not only the continental crust but also for the mountain ranges. Molten magma rises from the mantle layer through fractures in the Earth's crust and as the magma reaches the surface and spills out, basalt forms. However, when the magma stays inside the subsurface, this large amount of material can uplift the land surface, causing not only mountains to uplift but also the continents themselves to uplift. As continental mountains are composed primarily of granite, the idea of mantle plumes can give an explanation of the origin of mountains and continents. Geologists recognize that granite forms when magma cools slowly inside the subsurface in contrast to basalt, which cools quickly as magma is spilled onto the surface. Some have proposed the concept of mantle plumes for the origin of mountains and continents as an alternative to plate tectonic theory, which claims that mountains and continents are uplifted by tectonic forces caused by plate tectonics, including folding caused by crustal plates being pushed against each other.
Another theory is based on the Book of Genesis, where subterranean water was released from the mid-ocean ridges (the fountains of the deep) along with volcanic material and as this material was released, the ocean basins sunk, which caused the continents to rise. Mantle plumes could be incorporated with this model at the crustal boundaries causing numerous mountain ranges to form and causing uplift to the continent. The mystery of the origin of continental crust continues.
Geosyncline Theory and Stationary Continents
The concept of geosynclines contains the idea of bowl shaped depressions filled with sediment and was commonly accepted before the development of plate tectonic theory. The geosyncline concept was developed in the mid-19th century by American geologists James Hall and James Dwight Dana during study of the Appalachian Mountains. Geosynclines were proposed to be deepening and filling basins resulting from crustal contraction and cooling of the Earth. The geosyncline concept was widely accepted for the origin of mountain ranges until the development of plate tectonics in the 1960s, particularly the subduction zone and continental collisions.
Despite the mainstream acceptance of plate tectonics, some continue to believe that the continents have remained stationary and did not move horizontally thousands of miles over the history of the earth. Proponents of stationary continents give explanations such as the frictional forces preventing large continental plates from moving thousands of miles. While the plate boundaries have been observed by modern radar and photography, further evidence is needed to show that the continents are continuously moving. The many fractures in the Earth’s surface and near plate boundaries show evidence of vertical tectonics, but more evidence is needed to show that the plates are moving horizontally.
The Impact Theory (Shock Theory)
Another theory proposes that a large planetary body or meteorite hit the earth and initiated the mid-ocean ridge breakup. This theory could be combined with either plate tectonic theory or the hydroplate theory. The impact of a large planetary body would have enough energy to cause the earth to break open at the mid-ocean ridges according to this theory. This theory is also related to the theory that a planetary collision with earth produced the moon. A smaller planet could have collided with the earth and possibly have been swallowed by the earth and a portion of the earth on the other side could have been ejected and became the moon. Or the moon itself could have hit the earth, bounced off and continued to stay in the Earth’s orbit. However, creationists have strong reservations against the impact model associated with the moon's origin, particularly because of its near circular orbit around the earth makes an impact unlikely. This theory also doesn't explain what would keep plate tectonics in motion for billions of years and therefore is an evidence for the youth of the earth.
Intraplate Earthquakes and Tectonic Activity
The occurrence of tectonic activity on the Earth's crust away from tectonic plate boundaries is a major problem for plate tectonic theory. According to mainstream plate tectonic theory, most major tectonic activity should occur at plate tectonic boundaries. However, major tectonic activity has been recorded away from major tectonic boundaries. Many major tectonic faults exists outside the major tectonic boundaries, such as the New Madrid Fault in North America. In addition, a major earthquake occurred at Charleston, South Carolina in the late 19th century. Also the geysers and volcanic activity at the Yellowstone National Park "hot spot" occur in the middle of the North American tectonic plate. The Hawaii hot spot occurs in the middle of the Pacific Plate. The Icelandic hot spot occurs on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, but why just this one location? Why are there no other hot spots located on the Mid-Ocean Ridge System?
Grand Theories of Everything
There is a tendency in mainstream science to promote "theories of everything" that can be accepted by the mass population. However, these theories tend to be simplistic and in reality do not cover the entire story. In other words, concepts such as plate tectonics are much more complicated than described in science textbooks and many real-world observations in the field do not fit the model. Theories of continental drift and plate tectonics are similar to other "theories of everything" in science, such as the Big Bang model for the origin of the universe and the molecule-to-man macroevolution used by mainstream scientists to explain the origin of life on earth. There are many problems with the Big Bang and macroevolution theories that mainstream scientists continue to ignore for convenience. Some mainstream scientists point out these problems but most scientists ignore these problems and stick to the models simply as a result of the difficulty in addressing these problems.
Mainstream scientists are also dedicated to preserving the old-earth and old-universe models, or ages of more than 4.5 billion years for the earth and the solar system while promoting an age of more than 13 billion years for the universe. Any scientific discovery that contradicts these ages is ignored by mainstream scientists in order to fit the established models. Identifying the problems with plate tectonics, macroevolution, or the Big Bang models could expose evidence for a younger earth or universe. Therefore, mainstream scientists ignore problems with their "theories of everything" in order to preserve their time frame in the billions of years.
Brown, Walt. In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood.
Ollier, Cliff and Colin Pain. The Origin of Mountains.
Hutton, William and Eagle, Jonathan. 2004. Earth's Catastrophic Past and Future.
