From: rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu (Roger Squires)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: New and improved Ted - maybe.....
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:39:27 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque


From: macrae@pandora.geo.ucalgary.ca (R. Andrew MacRae)
------------------------
I must apologize, I posted my "waste of time responding to Ted"  
messages, and then, miraculously, Ted started discussing some of his  
ideas with other people who disputed his postings.  I have been  
reading talk.origins, but was too busy to compose any responses of my  
own (I just submitted my thesis on Sept.30 - whew!).  Now....

I have to admit Ted, this is much better.  In fact, it is even better  
than just responding.  You have changed some of your interpretations.   
Until now (as your posting seemed to indicate), you denied that the  
Tethys ocean ever existed.  Now you aggree that some ocean may have  
been present for a brief time, somewhere in the area where the  
evidence of the Tethys is currently located.  This is great!  Now I  
hope you follow through, and at least clarify this aspect of your  
"Egg-shaped antediluvian world" posting for next time.

But enough of the accolades.  Back to some tough questions:

1) Ted, do you know where the evidence for the Tethys Ocean occurs?   
It occurs all along the largest, highest mountain chain in the world,  
the Alpine-Himalayan belt (i.e southern Europe, through the Middle  
East, and into China).  If you admit the Tethys ocean existed in some  
form, at some time, how did it get in the mountains?  Note: it is  
difficult to both produce the "split" (the Tethys) due to the  
collapse of the "world mountain", and produce a mountian belt with  
the same process, in the same area.

2) If you accept some of the evidence indicating the presence of  
"lost oceans" in the case of the Tethys, would you accept the same  
evidence if found in, oh, the Appalachians or the Urals?

In talk.origins:
|> * hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde)
|> news@fedfil.UUCP (Ted Holden)
> hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde)
|>
|> *    So, *do* you agree that the continents drifted for a time
|> *    prior to Pangaea?
|> 

|> No.   

   

	But that does not make any sense with your theory!  You say  
that the continents were drawn to one point by an external force -  
i.e. they were apart, and _drifted_ _before_ Pangea.
	
[Ted is not convinced that former supercontinents, like Pangea,  
existed.]
|> The concept would have never occurred to anybody.  Given this, I
|> fail to see by what means you can claim that Pangaea has existed
|> more than once. 


>        If you wish to remain willfully ignorant, and not read the
>        literature, I cannot help you.  But your failures of
>        industry and imagination have no impact on reality.  If your
>        theory cannot explain the earlier pangaea, it is a failure.

	Well, at the very least, if Ted rejects the earlier "Pangea",  
he cannot use the evidence for the most recent Pangea to support his  
theory.  You can't selectively throw out one, and keep the other to  
support your theory, since they are based on the same types of  
evidence.  It is hypocritical to do so.

	If anyone, Ted included, wants to read about the earlier  
"Pangea", in a less technical fashion, check out the following  
article:

Murphy, J.B and Nance, R.D., 1992.  Mountain belts and
the supercontinent cycle.  Scientific American, April 1992 issue,
p.84-91.

It describes the "supercontinent cycle", which is the conventional  
geologic theory that competes with Ted's theory.  Read it, read Ted's  
post, you be the judge.

-Andrew
macrae@pandora.geo.ucalgary.ca