Make your own free website on Tripod.com

Proof Against Neal Adams and Expanding Earth

Seafloor Spreading:
Home | About Myself: | Neal Adams Intro: | Neal Adams Pangaea Synopsis: | Geological Theory: | Plate Tectonic Theory: | Pangaea: | India: | Seafloor Spreading: | Cretaceous Mass Extinction: | Internal Structure:

Here I will discuss Neal Adams "calculations" on seafloor spreading.

Below is an essay written by Neal Adams claiming that the seafloor is growing exponentially.

Neal Adams: Seafloor Spreading:

These calculations are completely meaningless. First, they do not show the work, as I have done in previous pages. Secondly, he does not take into account the physics of tectonic plates.

These calculations do not take into account subduction. Therefore, he could easily claim that they are growing exponentially, or whatever he wanted them to do. Also, he doesn't take into account oceanic crust thickening and sinking due to increase mass and water saturation.

Conclusion, Neal Adams claims are meaningless and should not be taken seriously.

There is a common problem that most people associate with Plate Tectonic Theory and that is this. It seems that the area of spreading exceeds that of subduction. It also seems that the amount of spreading exceeds that of subduction. How can this be?

It is simple. The area and the amount were calculated and measured accurately. I have no problem with that. However, the interpretation is different. The reason why it appears that the amount of subduction is smaller then spreading is because of simplicity. Remember that oceanic crust thickens as it gets older, and gets heavier because of saturation of water. This causes the Oceanic Crust to sink into the Upper Mantle before it actually subducts. Therefore, the NET combination of subduction and sinking will result in similar values.

However, the values will not be the same because if they were, then nothing would happen. The spreading pushes the plates around. That is why they move.

rainbowmap.gif
Map of the seafloor showing ages. Warm colors show younger ages. Cool colors show older ages

Now, this is where I really test Neal Adams theory. Ok, here is an except from Neal Adams critique on Pangaea. Remember, these quotes have not been tampered, altered or fabricated at all, these are from Neal Adams own words from his own website and essays.

"I say this: Earth was progressively smaller as we go back in time over 4 - 5 billion years it grew from a small planetesimal to a planet the size of Mars. The increasing speed of growth increased exponentially. The heat under the crust from this growth increased as it grew and the thin thick crust cracked more profoundly, and 2 - 4 miles deep, and over the final 200 million years rifted the ocean to reveal new deeper basalt plate until we have the Earth we see today." -- Neal Adams

Ok, here we have Neal Adams saying that:
1) Earth is 4 - 5 billion years old.
2) Oceanic crust is, at its oldest, 200 million years old.

Ok, well scientific consensus says that the age of the Earth is 4.55 billion years old and the oldest oceanic crust is approximately 180 million years. Ok, no problem. However, does anyone see a problem with these times.

The Earth formed 4.55 billion years ago (as far as we know) and, in Neal Adams world, was much smaller then it is today. According to him, it was roughly the size of Mars. Then, 180 - 200 million years ago, the oceanic crust starts to form due to the expansion of the Earth. What happened during that large period of time between its formation 4.55 billion years and 200 million years. What happened for 4.3 billion years?

You can't argue that the Earth is younger then 4.55 billion years. Why? Because, first Neal Adams constantly uses the ages of the ocean floor for his theories. The way geologist date the ocean floor is through radiometric dating, which is the same method that we date continental crust. So, if it works for the oceanic crust, it has to work from the continental crust, there is no way around it. In fact, 85% of the continental crust comprises of rock that formed during the Pre-Cambrian Super-Eon, which is a time older then 542 +/- 1.0 million years. So what happened?

Neal Adams explanation, according to that excerpt, it took that long for the Earth to heat up for it to start expanding. Does anyone sense that Neal Adams is now starting to really stretch for his answers.

The punchline here is that the timeline of the Earth according the Neal Adams theory is ridiculous.

Next: Dinosaurs:

Seafloor Spreading:

Mid-Ocean Ridge:

Oldest Rock and Mineral:

Radiometric Dating: