» Home > In the News

is subduction real

8 July 2015

Earthquake research came up with subduction to account for tectonic activity in some regions of the planet. However, it very quickly became a boon for the developing Plate Tectonics Theory (in the mid 20th century). It appeared to make sense, allied to the idea of sea floor spreading (an adaptation of continental drift). In spite of the beauty of the match there has always been problems – from the first hatchings of Plate Tectonics. Mainstream tended to ignore the mismatches, and the anomalies, thinking it was just a lack of data. In other words, a new theory that could be subsumed into uniformitarian thinking was preferred – before it had been properly investigated. So eager were mainstream to keep uniformitarianism on song they simply pretended all was well – and no anomalies in Plate Tectonics theory existed (especially when it came to subduction), The act of subduction was and is necessary if sea floor spreading takes place in a planet of a fixed size. If new basalt is being formed on the bottom of the oceans old sea floor has to be disappearing elsewhere – otherwise the earth would have to be expanding (or something like that).

At www.ncgt.org (the New Concepts in Global Tectonics journal) (June, 2015) some of the mismatches are brought to the reader's attention. A connection between ocean trenches and deep earthquake zones is not always present as should be expected if subduction was taking place. Ocean trenches, rather than subduction zones, appear to be rift like structures (as occur on the land surface) which seems to indicate tensile failure. Not only that, many of the trenches in the Pacific contain horizontally bedded sediments on the basement (at the bottom of the trenches) dating back many millions of years ago – which by itself is very odd. Old sea floor is supposed to be subducting at ocean trenches, down into the Mantle. Clearly, this cannot be the case if trenches have sediments that should have disappeared many moons ago.

Subduction elsewhere (at continental margins for example) is also suspect. Smot et al (2001) in his book, 'Active Margin Geomorphology' found no evidence of seismic activity where subduction is supposed to occur (around the perimeters of the Pacific). Choi (2005) could find no evidence for subduction in Indonesia or at the Juan de Fuca Plate. In other places geological sequences are known to occur across what are thought to be regions of subduction (in the literature) hence being obvious evidence the landscape is not subducting. The author, Vadim Gordienko goes on to say that in spite of all this lack of actual physical evidence for subduction there is an ongoing enthusiasm in settled science for the isomorphic approach to global tectonics (which indicates there is something seriously wrong with the settled science of geology).

Skip to content