Starting subduction in Plate Tectonics - How?

In article .com,
"don findlay" wrote:

rick++ wrote:
Don't confuse the boy with facts. He doesn't handle them well.

Plate tectonics explains some things well and some things not so well.
This is a case where it works well.
People who say it explains everything or nothing aren't very good
scientists.

(Still no takers?) Would you care to tighten your claim up a bit?

( I'll help you.) What aspect of global deformation would you consider
best explained by plate tectonics?

Do you mean, what global surface feature is explained better by plate
tectonics than by expanding earth?

Um.... Subduction zones.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.

"Timberwoof" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
"don findlay" wrote:

rick++ wrote:
Don't confuse the boy with facts. He doesn't handle them well.

Plate tectonics explains some things well and some things not so well.
This is a case where it works well.
People who say it explains everything or nothing aren't very good
scientists.

(Still no takers?) Would you care to tighten your claim up a bit?

( I'll help you.) What aspect of global deformation would you consider
best explained by plate tectonics?

Do you mean, what global surface feature is explained better by plate
tectonics than by expanding earth?

Um.... Subduction zones.

That's one. Another phenomenon that is best explained by PT is the
petrology of MORs as well as the petrology of subduction zones. DF would
have us believe that subduction doesn't occur, yet he cannot explain the
petrology in the regions where subduction occurs, and how that relates to
EE. PT does explain the petrology of both subduction and spreading, and
does so quite nicely.

George

"George" wrote in message
...

"Timberwoof" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
"don findlay" wrote:

rick++ wrote:
Don't confuse the boy with facts. He doesn't handle them well.

Plate tectonics explains some things well and some things not so
well.
This is a case where it works well.
People who say it explains everything or nothing aren't very good
scientists.

(Still no takers?) Would you care to tighten your claim up a bit?

( I'll help you.) What aspect of global deformation would you consider
best explained by plate tectonics?

Do you mean, what global surface feature is explained better by plate
tectonics than by expanding earth?

Um.... Subduction zones.

That's one. Another phenomenon that is best explained by PT is the
petrology of MORs as well as the petrology of subduction zones. DF would
have us believe that subduction doesn't occur, yet he cannot explain the
petrology in the regions where subduction occurs, and how that relates to
EE. PT does explain the petrology of both subduction and spreading, and
does so quite nicely.

George

Here is the abstract of a rather good paper that discusses the above:

http://petrology.oxfordjournals.org/...tract/44/5/851

George