Continental Drift, Plate Tectonics, and the Bible

by Stuart E. Nevins, M.S.

Twenty years ago geologists were certain that the data correlated perfectly with the then-reigning model of stationary continents. The handful of geologists who promoted the notion of continental drift were accused of indulging in pseudoscientific fancy. Today, the opinion is reversed. The theory of moving continents is now the ruling paradigm and those who question it are often referred to as stubborn or ignorant. This "revolution" in our concept of the earth's character is a striking commentary on the human nature of scientists and on the flexibility that scientists allow in use of the geological data. Plate Tectonics The popular theory of drifting continents and oceans is called "plate tectonics."1 (Tectonics is the field of geology which studies the processes which deform the earths crust.) The general tenets of the popular theory may be stated as follows. The outer lithospheric shell of the earth consists of a mosaic of rigid plates, each in motion relative to adjacent plates. Deformation occurs at the margins of plates by three basic types of motion: horizontal extension, horizontal slipping, and horizontal compression. Sea-floor spreading occurs where two plates are diverging horizontally (e.g., the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and East Pacific Rise) with new material from the earth's mantle being added between them to form a new oceanic crust. Transform faulting occurs where one plate is slipping horizontally past another (e.g., the San Andreas fault of California and the Anatolian fault of northern Turkey). Subduction occurs where two plates are converging with one plate underthrusting the other producing what is supposed to be compressional deformation (e.g., the Peru-Chile Trench and associated Andes Mountains of South America). In conformity with evolutionary-uniformitarian assumption, popular plate tectonic theory supposes that plates move very slowly about 2 to 18 centimeters per year. At this rate it would take 100 million years to form an ocean basin or mountain range. Fitting of Continents The idea that the continents can be fitted together like a jigsaw puzzle to form a single super continent is an old one. Especially interesting is how the eastern "bulge" of South America can fit into the southwestern "concavity" of Africa. Recent investigators have used computers to fit the continents. The "Bullard fit"2 gives one of the best reconstructions of how Africa, South America, Europe, and North America may have once touched. There are, however, areas of overlap of continents and one large area which must be omitted from consideration (Central America). There are a number of ways to fit Africa, India, Australia, and Antarctica (only one can be correct!). Reconstructions have been shown to be geometrically feasible which are preposterous to continental drift (e.g., rotation of eastern Australia fits nicely into eastern North America).3 Those who appreciate the overall fit of continents call the evidence "compelling," while others who note gaps, overlaps, or emissions remain skeptical. It is difficult to

place probability on the accuracy of reconstructions and one's final judgment is largely subjective. Sea-Floor Spreading Evidence suggesting sea-floor spreading is claimed by many geologists to be the most compelling argument for plate tectonics. In the ocean basins along mid-ocean ridges or rises (and in some shallow seas) plates are thought to be diverging slowly and continuously at a rate of several centimeters yearly. Molten material from the earth's mantle is injected continuously between the plates and cools to form new crust. The youngest crust is claimed to be at the crest of the ocean rise or ridge with older crust farther from the crest. At the time of cooling, the rock acquires magnetism from the earth's magnetic field. Since the magnetic field of earth is supposed by many geologists to have reversed numerous times, during some epochs cooling oceanic crust should be reversely magnetized. If sea-floor spreading is continuous, the ocean floor should possess a magnetic "tape recording" of reversals. A "zebra stripe" pattern of linear magnetic anomalies parallel to the ocean ridge crest has been noted in some areas and potassium-argon dating has been alleged to show older rocks farther from the ridge crest. There are some major problems with this classic and "most persuasive" evidence of sea-floor spreading. First the magnetic bands may not form by reversals of the earth's magnetic field. Asymmetry of magnetic stripes, not symmetry, is the normal occurrence.4 It has been argued that the linear patterns can be caused by several complex interacting factors (differences in magnetic susceptibility, magnetic reversals, oriented tectonic stresses).5 Second, it is doubtful that the magnetic anomalies have been successfully dated. Wesson6 says that potassium-argon dating when correctly interpreted shows no evidence of increasing age with distance from the ridge system. The greater argon content (giving older apparent age) of ocean basalt on the flanks of the ocean ridges can be explained easily by the greater depth and pressure at the time of solidification incorporating original magmatic argon.7 Subduction Corollary to the idea of plate accretion by sea-floor spreading is the notion of plate destruction by subduction. (If sea-floor spreading occurs without plate destruction, the quantity of crust will increase and the volume of the earth must increase!). Subduction theory supposes that converging plates are destroyed below ocean trenches. The island arc or coastal mountain range associated with ocean trench subduction zones is claimed to form by compression as one plate is underthrusting another. The plate that is "subducted" below the trench is thought to be remelted at a depth of up to 700 kilometers. Gravity data indicate low density material of crustal character on the landward side below trenches. (Also, deep and high intensity earthquakes (i.e., earthquakes in Alaska, Peru, Nicaragua, etc.) are assumed to indicate break-up of the underthrust plate. Two major difficulties are encountered by models supposing subduction to explain the modern tectonic phenomena in ocean trenches. First, if subduction theory is

correct, there should be compressed, deformed, and thrust faulted sediment on the floors of trenches. Studies of the Peru-Chile Trench and the eastern Aleutian Trench,8 however, show soft flat lying sediment without compression structures. Second, seismic first-motion data indicate that modern earthquakes occurring approximately under trenches and island arcs are oftentensional, but only rarely compressional.9 The Mysterious Cause of Drift What is the driving force for continental drift and plate tectonics? How is a plate ten thousand kilometers long, several thousand kilometers wide, and one hundred kilometers thick, kept in constant but almost imperceptibly slow movement during millions of years? Will slow and continuous application of stress on a plate 100 kilometers thick cause it to be torn asunder? How can a plate be broken and then rammed slowly into the earth's mantle to a depth of 700 kilometers? Here are some of the most baffling problems for plate tectonics. Evolutionary-uniformitarian explanations for plate motion range from very doubtful to impossible. A popular idea is that rising convection currents in the earth's mantle exert lateral forces on plates moving them slowly and continuously. The best theory of the viscosity of the earth's mantle, however, shows that large-scale convection systems are impossible.10 Three other theories are sometimes mentioned: (1) plates slide by gravity from the elevated mid-ocean ridge to the depressed trench, (2) plates are "pulled" into the mantle below trenches by chemical phase changes during melting, (3) plates are "pushed" apart along mid-ocean ridges by slow injection of magma into vertical cracks. Each of these mechanisms (alone or together) cannot overcome the viscous drag at the base of the plate, and cannot explain how the difference in elevation developed or how the plate boundary originally formed. The absence of sufficient mechanism for plate motion, the uncertainty regarding the existence of sea-floor spreading, and the doubts about subduction cause us to question the popular geologic syntheses known as "plate tectonics." Continental Drift and the Bible The Bible framework for earth history makes no statement about continental splitting, so it is unnecessary and unwise to take a "Biblical" position on the question. When God created the land and sea, the waters were "gathered together unto one place" (Genesis 1:9), which may imply one large ocean and one large land mass. The scripture which says "the earth was divided" in the days of Peleg (Genesis 10:25) is generally thought to refer to the Tower of Babel division (Genesis 11:1-9) and some suppose this included continental separation. To believe, however, that the continents moved thousands of miles during the Tower of Babel incident without causing another global flood requires a miracle. Similarly, it is doubtful whether the long day of Joshua can be explained naturalistically by plate tectonics. If continental separation did occur, the only place within the Bible framework where it could fit would be during Noah's Flood. The cause of Noah's Flood is described in tectonic terms: "all the fountains of the great deep broken up" (Genesis 7:11). The Hebrew word for "broken up" is baga and is used in other Old Testament passages (Zechariah 14:4; Numbers 16:31) to refer to the geologic phenomena of faulting. The

mechanism for retreat of the Flood waters is also associated with tectonics. Psalm 104:6,7 describes the abating of the waters which stood above the mountains; the eighth verse properly translated says, "The mountains rose up; the valleys sank down." It is interesting to note that the "mountains of Ararat" (Genesis 8:4), the resting place of the Ark after the 150th day of the Flood, are in a tectonically active region at the junction of three lithospheric plates.11 If continental separation occurred during Noah's Flood, a host of problems in the tectonic dilemma can be solved. Rapid mid-ocean rifting can explain the large quantity of volcanic rocks on the sea floor. The presence of low density crustal rock down to a depth of 700 kilometers within the mantle below trenches can be attributed to rapid underthrusting. The cause for the ancient breaking up of continents can be explained easily by the enormous catastrophic forces of Noah's Flood which broke the lithosphere into moving plates which for a short time overcame the viscous drag of the earth's mantle. The amazing similarity of sedimentary Flood layers in the northeastern United States to those of Britain (i.e., Carboniferous coal strata and Devonian red sandstones) and the absence of these in the North Atlantic ocean basin suggests that continental separation occurred toward the end of the Flood. Conclusion The idea that sea-floor plates form slowly and continuously at a rate of a few centimeters each year as the ocean crust is being rift apart, is not supported by geologic data. The concept of destruction of sea-floor plates over millions of years by slow underthrusting below ocean trenches is also doubtful. Furthermore, the cause for the alleged gradual and uninterrupted motion of plates is an unsolved mystery. Despite these failures in the modern theory of "plate tectonics," the notion that the earth's surface has been deformed at the margins of moving plate-like slabs appears to be a valid one. The facts indicate that the separation of the continents, rifting of the ocean floor, and underthrusting of ocean trenches, were accomplished by rapid processes, not occurring today, initiated by a catastrophic mechanism. Noah's Flood, as described in the Bible, was certainly associated with tectonic processes and provides the time in the Biblical framework of earth history when continental separation may have occurred. REFERENCES
For summaries of the literature see J.F. Dewey, Plate tectonics, Sci. Amer., v. 226, 1972, p. 56-68 and W. Sullivan, Continents in motion, the new earth debate: New York, McGraw- Hill, 1974, 399 p. For collections of important, somewhat technical papers affirming plate tectonics, see: Continentsadrift, readings from Scientific American: San Francisco, W. H. Freeman & Co., 1973, 172 p. and Allan Cox, ed., Plate tectonics and geomagnetic reversals: San Francisco, W. H. Freeman and Co., 1973, 702 p. For a technical critique of plate tectonics see C. F. Kahle, ed., Plate tectonics - assessments and reassessments: Tulsa, Amer. Assoc. Pet. Geol., Memoir 23, 1974, 514 p. 2 E. C. Bullard, J. E. Everett and A. G. Smith, Fit continents around Atlantic, in P.M.S. Blackett et al.,eds., A symposium on continental drift: Roy. Soc. London, Phil. Trans., ser. A, V. 258, 1965, p. 4175. 3 A. H. Voisey, Some comments on the hypothesis of continental drift, in Continental drift, a symposium: Hobart, Univ. Tasmania, l958, p. 162-171. 4 A. A. Meyerhoff and H. A. Meyerhoff, "The new global tectonics": age of linear magnetic anomalies of ocean basis: American Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bulletin, v 56, 1972, p 337-359. 5 Ibid., p. 354-355.
1

P. S. Wesson, Objections to continental drift and plate tectonics: J. Geol., v. 80, 1972, p. 191. C. S. Noble and J. J. Naughton, Deep-ocean basalts: inert gas content and uncertainties in age dating:Science, v. 162, 1968, p. 265-267. G. B. Dalrymple and J. G. Moore, Argon-40: excess in submarine pillow basalts from Kilauea Volcano, Hawaii: Science, v. 161, 1968, p. 1132-1135. 8 D. W. Scholl, et al., Peru-Chile Trench sediments and sea-floor spreading: Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull., v. 81, 1970, p. 1339-1360. R. E. Van Huene, Structure of the continental margin and tectonism at the eastern Aleutian Trench: Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull., v. 83, 1972, p. 3613-3626. 9 W. F. Tanner, Deep-sea trenches and the compression assumption: Amer. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull., v. 57, 1973, p. 2195-2206. 10 For a review of arguments against convection currents see P. S. Wesson, loc. cit., p. 187. 11 J. F. Dewey, et al., Plate tectonics and the evolution of the alpine system: Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull., v. 84, 1973, p. 3139.
6 7

Thus far the picture painted of Alfred Wegener's contemporaries is not flattering. But this might be unfair. One would expect some scientists to resist ideas that would invalidate their life's work. But it doesn't explain all criticism of Wegener's ideas. Wegener presented very compelling arguments for Continental Drift but there were alternate explanations for some of his observations. To explain the unusual distribution of fossils in the Southern Hemisphere some scientists proposed there may once have been a network of land bridges between the different continents. To explain the existence of fossils of temperate species being found in arctic regions, the existence of warm water currents was proposed. Modern scientists would look at these explanations as even less credible than those proposed by Wegener, but they did help to preserve the steady state theory. New theories donot always arrive with all the t's crossed and i's dotted. Wegener did not have an explanation for how continental drift could have occurred. He proposed two different mechanisms for this drift, one based on the centrifugal force caused by the rotation of the earth and a 'tidal argument' based on the tidal attraction of the sun and the moon. These explanations could easily be proven inadequate and opened Wegener to ridicule because they were orders of magnitude too weak. Wegener really did not believe that he had the explanation for the mechanism, but that this should not stop discussion of a hypothesis. The scientists of the time disagreed. After Alfred Wegener died, the Continental Drift Theory was quietly swept under the rug. With the Continental Drift Theory out of the way, the existing theories of continent formation were able to survive, with little challenge until the 1960's.

Plate Tectonics is one of the most important geophysical/structural geology subjects today. To determine the cause of the movement of the plates is the most studied problem. The first evidence for plate movement was, of course, found by Wegener in 1925. This was a result of a comparison of the continental edges of South America and South Africa. It was not until the 1950's, however, that Carey (1954) found the remarkably good fit between the continents using a modelled globe. Wegener's evidence was primarily geological and paleo-climatological. The model of the Earth developed by the seismologists, at this time, was a liquid iron core surrounded by a solid mantle with no convection movements. When Elsasser and Bullard (1965) developed their geomagnetic field theory, postulating that there are convective motions in the fluid iron core, there was no real objection by the seismologists since the core did not transmit

s-waves, indicating it is a classical fluid. It was not until the development of paleomagnetism that there was new evidence for continental drift, then later on, geophysical measurements of the ocean floor swept away most of the doubts geophysicists had about continental drift. This now constitutes part of the subject called plate tectonics. Many theories on the mechanism for plate movement have been developed. The most popular and widely held view is that convection currents below the lithospheric plates, in the mantle, are responsible for their movement. This involves hot spots and subduction zones. The most radical view was that that developed by Carey (1954), Heezen (1959) and others , that the Earth is expanding causing the continents to break up and form plates. The Plume Hypothesis Morgan (1971, 1972) advocates the idea of mantle plumes to explain continental drift. Briefly, he advocates deep mantle convection in which narrow plumes of deep material rises and spreads out laterally in the asthenosphere. This convective movement causes stresses on the bottoms of the lithospheric plates, causing them to move. He suggests that "hot spots", areas of upwelling visible in the Earth's surface, provide the motive force for continental drift. It is based on three facts: (1) Most of the hot spots are near a ridge and a hot spot is near each of the triple ridge junctions; (2) the gravity and regional high topography suggests that more than just surface volcanism is involved at each hot spot; and (3) neither rises nor trenches appear capable of driving the plates, implying that asthenospheric currents acting on the plate bottoms must exist. He bases his theory on data and observations made worldwide. This explanation is convincing as his observations are simple and sound. Runcorn (1980) discounts Morgan's reasoning because it is based on the analogy with plumes in the asthenosphere; that a plume maintains a small horizontal width as it rises to a very great height. The reason this occurs in the atmosphere, according to Runcorn, is because the inertia term in the Navier-Stokes equation is much greater than the viscous force. In the mantle, the reverse is true. Gravity Sliding Before the evidence for convection became known, geophysicists tried to explain plate movement as do to their own inherent properties ie. gravity force. Hales (1969) suggested that the plates were moving away from the mid-oceanic ridges. Isac's and Molnar(1969), after the discovery that the plates were sinking into the asthenosphere along the trenches, suggested that since the overhanging part of the plate was colder than the surrounding mantle, it would also be denser, thus, a downward gravity force might cause the horizontal movement of the plate. Runcorn (1974) showed that by using magnitude calculations, it is possible a sufficient force would be produced. Therefore, this theory cannot be rejected on the grounds of magnitude, but should be rejected because it is impossible to explain how the process began and it does not enable any understanding of plate movements. Morgan (1972) rejected this theory, but on the grounds that small trench bounded plates, such as the Cocos, do not move faster than the larger Pacific Plate as would be expected.

Convection In contrast to the Plume theory of convection (Morgan, 1972), Runcorn (1980) promotes the theory of large-scale convection. He believes the only way the continents and plates could move in the regular way they have for the past hundred million years is by convection ion a large scale cell structure. This convection pattern changed with time from a one cell, to a two cell, to a three cell and then to a four cell pattern; thereby, explaining the breakup of Gondwanaland and Laurasia (Pangea) in only the last 150 million years. Evidence for this is sparse, however, one reason for large scale convection is that the Earth formed by accretion with the heavy elements, such as iron, sinking to the center forming a core (Urey, 1951); thus, the core may be continually growing. Runcorn (1980) says it is expected there would be a greater geothermal gradient in the lithosphere above the rising convection currents, thus, it would be possible to find the size and location of the currents. However, the time constant for the lithosphere 100m thick is about 100 million years in which time a plate would have moved a considerable distance relative to the origin of a heat source. Runcorn (1980) uses the shape of the geoid to support this theory. He says, "if a planet departs from hydrostatic equilibrium on a large scale then there are only two possible explanations. Either, density anomalies were acquired by the planet in its early history or the distortion of the planet is being produced dynamically". In otherwards, "the geoid is the primary evidence for convection patterns in the mantle". Jeffrey's (1975) has discovered the Earth's gravitational field departs from the accepted hydrostatic equilibrium model. However, the shape of the geoid and its relationship remain open to interpretation. The Expanding Earth Numerous authors, such as Egyed (1957), Cox and Doell (1961), Ward (1963), Creer (1965), Heezen (1960) and especially Carey (1954, 1970) have supported the theory that continents have moved apart because of an expanding Earth. Carey based his theory on geologic and tectonic observations while most other authors have used paleomagnetic data to supplement his initial theory. Carey (1970) proposes the Earth is made up of eight first order polygons, analogues to the lithospheric plates, with accretion occurring on all sides of each polygon. He says sea floor spreading supports his argument, that new crust must be forming between continents for expansion to occur. Thus, each of them has increased greatly in area, irrespective of how much or how little swelling of crust along trenches occurred. Thus, this means the Earth has increased in total surface area by a large amount. Based on the area of oceanic crust on each polygon, Carey has calculated the amount of expansion, which has taken place, is 76%. This equivalent to a 33% increase in radius. As further evidence, Carey suggests the following: if you stand on any polygon, it has moved away from every other polygon and if you face about, the distance to each polygon has also increased. This is assuming the Earth consisted almost entirely of continental crust with oceanic crust only being produced in the Mesozoic-Phanerozoic. There is evidence that oceanic crust must have been present before this time, for instance, along Lower Paleozoic accreted continental margins and in Precambian greenstones.

That oceanic area has increased is consistent with Egyed's observations that each polygon shows progressively less marine transgression through geologic time. Since oceanic crust can have twice as much water as continental crust Carey (1970), the theory that the Earth's surface has increased with time by progressive increase in the area of the ocean basins is supported. Island arcs appear to be supportive of a subduction type environment in which case convective movement on a non-expanding Earth would be the obvious mechanism for plate movement. However, Carey (1970) denies that island arcs are the result of volcanism along a zone where oceanic crust is being subducted under continental plate. Instead, because all island arcs are bowed eastward, he suggests they are tensional features. To illustrate this, Carey used an analogy with a glacier. On the western side is a dilation zone of new oceanic crust with high heat flux and repeated horsts and grabens, in contrast with the other side which is passive and quiet with little disturbed sediments. Dilation rifts occur in similar fashion at the head of a glacier and the graben arc. Thus, he says, " trenches are dilation rifts". This theory is in stark contrast to calculations made by various authors, such as Morgan (1972) and Runcorn (1980), who state the plates are actually colliding, moving in opposite directions. This data is widely accepted as the norm today. Carey (1970) makes a bold suggestion when he says his data indicates expansion must be occurring at the rapid rate of 8mm a year and almost all of it occurring since the Late Paleozoic-Mesozoic. Almost universally, other authors (Dooley, 1973; Creer, 1965; Egyed, 1960) have through their calculations based on paleomagnetic data suggest this is impossible. They have in turn, however, stated that the Earth could expand at a slower rate, upto 0.5mm a year, for long periods. These authors, Creer (1965) in particular, suggest the Earth may have been expanding all its life at a slow rate. Therefore, at the time Pangea began to breakup, the Earth's radius would have been similar to its present radius. Numerous models have been constructed (Dooley, Creer) to illustrate how well the continents fit together to form Pangea. All agree that the best is obtained at present. This destroys Carey's model, which assumes to have a radius 76% of the present radius at the time of Pangea breakup. This does not destroy the suggestion that the Earth is expanding at a slower rate. Creer (1965) says, "I think expansion should be regarded as something which may been gently, but persistently, occurring in the background. There may be little obvious geological evidence of expansion, most of this could easily have been obscured by more vicious and rapid processes, such as continental drift and orogeny." He goes on to say that to obtain a satisfactory explanation of expansion we may well have to wait until the origin of the universe has been successfully deciphered. Conclusion Criticism can be fired at all the theories expounded to explain the mechanism of plate tectonics. Therefore, it is best to choose the theory, which contains only minor holes and explains the mechanism in a simple, clear and distinct way.

Convective plume theory, developed by Le Pichon (1968), Morgan (1968), Runcorn (1980) and others has three major flaws: (1) plate boundaries are not distinct; (2) the condition that each plate having its own accretion and consumption boundary, as for the case for the African Plate, is violated; and (3) if the plates are rigid, as assumed, deformation should have occurred in bottle necks where part of a plate margin was subducted and the rest was not. Of course, the presence of island arcs, subduction zones, hot spots and basalt relationships support the convective-plume theory. The expansion theory of Cary has major flaws in it, among others, these are: (1) that the Earth was assumed to consist entirely of continental sialic crust; and (2) that a rapid expansion at a rate of 8mm/year had to occur in the last 200my; and (3) that the Earth had radius 76% of its present radius when Pangea broke up. The slow-expanding Earth theory of Creer (1965) and others is more plausible but lacks evidence. It does not suggest why the Earth would expand, why continental drift began so late in the Earth's history or where the energy source for expansion is derived from. The conclusion is that the convective-plume theory is the most plausible, based on evidence available.
-First, a brief summation of 100 years of history of geology, for perspective. The brain has room to hear, understand and store many theories, without accepting them initially. History has shown that often a discredited and discarded observation has become the new foundation stone of science. Earth Expansion: The Earth is not of constant size, but is expanding in radius about 1 per year. The Earth has been expanding for over 250 million years and so has approximately doubled in radius size. The Earths mass has increased and gravity has increased over this time. This is not new knowledge but it hasnt been widely taught. Sam Carey the outsider, but brilliant geologist, from Australia taught this for over 50 years, with limited recognition until he died in 2002. At the turn of the 20th Century (1900s) there were three (3) main theories to explain the Earths major features such as oceans and mountain ranges. They were the: 1) Constant Size Earth, the 2)Contracting Earth, and the 3) Expanding Earth. With few facts and mostly opinion and assumptions the Constant Size Earth theory became dogma to the exclusion of the others. Also at the turn of the 20th century, again there were two (2) competing theories, this time to explain the location of continents and the location of fossils. The believers of the two theories were the: 1)Fixists, and the 2) Mobilists. As the names indicate, scientists either thought that the continents were fixed in place and immoveable, or that they had moved throughout time. The Fixists then dominated and ridiculed the Mobilists, as in, What force could possibly move the continents! Most scientists then believed in the combination of possibilities to be a Constant size Earth, with FixedContinents. That was the dominant perception. Many know that in the 1912 Alfred Wegener wrote and lectured about Continental Displacement, which was demeaned and referred to as Continental Drift. His work was not accepted until well after his death in 1932. Most scientists didnt accept his findings until new irrefutable knowledge was gained in the 1960s.

Geologists have known for years that tectonic plates affect climate patterns. Now they say that the opposite is also true, finding that intensifying climate events can move tectonic plates. Using models based on known monsoonal and plate movement patterns, geologists say that the Indian Plate has accelerated by about 20% over the past 10 million years. The significance of this finding lies in recognising for the first time that long-term climate changes have the potential to act as a force and influence the motion of tectonic plates, Australian National University researcher Giampiero Iaffaldano told COSMOS. The researchers plugged information from research on monsoonal patterns and the Indian Plates movement into a model, which indicated that the monsoonal erosion that has battered the eastern Himalaya Mountains for the past 10 million years erodes enough material to account for the plates counter-clockwise rotation. By gradually shaving off rocks from the eastern flank and decreasing crustal thickness, the monsoonal rains essentially lighten the load on the eastern part of the Indian Plate, causing the plate to actually turn (at geological speed). The scientists ruled out the traditional powerhouse behind tectonic movement mantle convection because the mantles influence works on longer time frames than 10 million years. It doesnt account, for example, for the Indian Plates geologically rapid velocity increase of more than 5 millimeters per year since 3.6 million years ago. Geosyncline uplift: In geology, geosyncline is a term still occasionally used for a subsiding linear trough that was caused by the accumulation of sedimentary rock strata deposited in a basin and subsequently compressed, deformed, and uplifted into a mountain range, with attendant volcanism and plutonism. The filling of a geosyncline with tons of sediment is accompanied in the late stages of deposition by folding, crumpling, and faulting of the deposits. Intrusion of crystalline igneous rock and regional uplift along the axis of the trough generally complete the history of a particular geosyncline. It is then transformed into a belt of folded mountains. Thick volcanic sequences, together with graywackes (sandstones rich in rock fragments with a muddy matrix), cherts, and various sediments reflecting deepwater deposition or processes, are deposited in eugeosynclines, the outer deepwater segment of geosynclines. The geosyncline hypothesis is an obsolete concept
[1]

involving vertical crustal movement that has

been replaced by plate tectonics to explain crustal movement and geologic features. Geosynclines are divided into miogeosynclines and eugeosynclines, depending on the types of discernible rock strata of the mountain system. A miogeosyncline develops along a continental margin oncontinental crust and is composed of sediments with limestones, sandstones and shales. The occurrences of limestones and well-sorted quartzose sandstones indicate a shallow-water formation, and such rocks form in the inner segment of a geosyncline. The eugeosynclines consist of different sequences of lithologies more typical of deep marine environments. Eugeosynclinal rocks include thick sequences of greywackes, cherts, slates, tuffs and submarine lavas. The eugeosynclinal

deposits are typically more deformed, metamorphosed, and intruded by small to large igneous plutons. The eugeosynclines often contain exotic flysch and mlange sediments. An orthogeosyncline is a linear geosynclinal belt lying between continental and oceanic terranes, and having internal volcanic belts (eugeosynclinal) and external nonvolcanic belts (miogeosynclinal). Also known as geosynclinal couple or primary geosyncline. A miogeosyncline is the nonvolcanic portion of an orthogeosyncline, located adjacent a craton. A zeugogeosyncline is a geosyncline in a craton or stable area within which is also an uplifted area, receiving clastic sediments, also known as yoked basin. A parageosyncline is an epeirogenic geosynclinal basin located within a craton area. A exogeosyncline is a parageosyncline that lies along the cratonal border and obtains its clastic sediments from erosion of the adjacent orthogeosynclinal belt outside the craton. Also known as delta geosyncline; foredeep; or transverse basin. Several types of "mobile" geosynclinal zones have also been recognized and named. Among the more common of these are the taphrogeosyncline, a depressed block of the Earth's crust that is bounded by one or more high-angle faults and that serves as a site of sediment accumulation; and the paraliageosyncline, a deep geosyncline that passes into coastal plains along continental margins.