EEFAQOphio

Ophiolites are pieces of ancient crustal seafloor (and some mantle) that are found on continents. They
do not compose 1/10th of one percent of the missing pre-Jurassic ocean floor (roughly 2/3rd's of the
Earth's surface) assumed in plate tectonics and cannot indicate the width of past seas. Everyone
agrees that deep marine enviroments existed pre-Jurassic. In expanding Earth theory (EE), all deep
marine bodies pre-Jurassic were intra- and epicontinental seas, and ophiolites, in this view, are just
vertically emplaced remnants of these marine formations. The conventional assumption that these are
obducted segments of extra-continental oceanic material that have been shoved onto continents -- as
opposed to being part of epicontinental seafloor material -- is dubious. Moreover, the relevant
prediction of EE was that all current ocean floor of the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans would be less
than 200 million years old. And conventional assumptions about ophiolites are not relevant to this
correct prediction (and EE requirement) of the juvenile nature of current ocean floor.

Otto Hilgenberg, in 1933, argued that all continental crust had united to form a single crust on a smaller
globe (paleoradius ~55-65% of current radius). This required some mechanism for seafloor formation
and that all current ocean floor was younger than essentially all continental crust (which ranges in age
from 200 million years old to more than 3.5 billion years old.) The 1960's oceanic discovery of the
juvenile age (<200 million years old) of all current seafloor was a confirmation of a natural prediction of
expanding Earth theory that surprised mainstream geologists at the time.

Quoting Ford:

"In plate tectonics, ophiolites are interpreted as over-thrusted oceanic crust that has been "obducted"
over continental margin crust. Many geologist seriously doubt the plausibility of obduction sheet
geometry due to abundant contrary field relationships.

"In the Earth expansion model ophiolites are considered to be artefacts of extremely rapid tensional
dome rifting that has exposed part of an intermontane sea's submerged rift zone due to very rapid
uplift and spreading. This ophiolitic diapiric mantle material is then swept aside by the rapidly
extending spreading centre and incorporated into the peripheral orogenic zone. Oceanic crust itself
is a type of "ophiolitic" mantle derived material. Ophiolite exposures may also occur in areas of
severe transverse faulting and crustal dilation as a "melange" component or as a mylonitised
injection.

"Professor S. W. Carey, performed his doctorate field work in the Papua New Guinea highlands and
was one of the first geologists to work within the area. This is what Carey had to say concerning the
current plate tectonics proposed obduction explanation of ophiolite outcrops in PNG:

"Recent research on the Oman ophiolite has confirmed that it is the result of mantle diapiric
emplacement--not obduction! "

The "recent research" to which Ford was referring was the Newsletter of the US RIDGE
Initiative:Volume 10, Number 1- June 1999 "Seismic Modeling of the Oman Ophiolite and
Comparisons with Data from the East Pacific Rise Undershoot" By David Jousselin, Dept of
Geological Sciences, University of Oregon. According to Jousellin:

.".. my Ph.D. thesis involved considerable field work in the Oman ophiolite. This ophiolite is
believed to be derived from a paleo-fast-spreading ridge, in particular because of its continuous
gabbro section which is attributed to an axially continuous magma chamber. My main
accomplishments were a detailed structural mapping of the mantle section of three
paleospreading centers (including the famous Maqsad area), and a microstructural analysis of
peridotite samples from the studied areas. Our studies confirmed the occurrence of mantle
diapirism below the Oman paleoridge and gave an improved image of this fundamental feature..."

Thus, it would seem that the Oman ophiolite, at the very least, supports Carey's model of
ophiolite origin rather than conventional view. Moreover, some mainstream geologists contend
now that ophiolites were never part of mid-ocean seafloor but formed in a fore-arc setting.
Regardless, a few, isolated segments of ancient seafloor on continents is not relevant to the fact
that all current seafloor between the continents is less than 200 million years old -- and removing
this youthful crust reunites both matching continental outlines and countless poor-dispersing
trans-oceanic fossil taxa. This is true of every ocean including the Pacific .

Again, everyone agrees that deep marine bodies existed on continents prior to the Jurassic.
The question is whether wide oceans existed between and around the continents at this time --
and have since completely disappeared. The fact that all pre-Jurassic marine crustal material
and marine fossils occur exclusively on continents rather than between them in oceanic settings
is more evidence for the expanding Earth view.

"Briggs (2004) also suggested that Precambrian and Palaeozoic marine fossils provided evidence
for 'extensive oceans'. But all pre-Jurassic marine fossils are found in continental regions; none occur
in the Pacific or any other ocean (Kious & Tilling, 1996). This is consistent with the EE prediction that
all deep marine environments were epicontinental seas and that all ocean basins were closed
pre-Jurassic. Mainstream geologists account for the lack of pre-Jurassic crust and fossils in the
ocean basins with the hypothesis that every square metre of pre-Jurassic ocean crust has been
subducted in the last 200 my years (e.g., Oliver & Isacks, 1967; Isacks et al., 1968), taking the marine
fossils with them. This is not evidence for a pre-Jurassic superocean; this is simply a post-hoc
supposition for why we do not find such evidence for a pre-Jurassic superocean."

"Figure 1 is part of an
oceanic crustal age poster
from the NOAA (National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration) National
Geophysical Data Center
(based on Mueller et al,
1993). The age range of the
Pacific is nearly the same as
that of the Atlantic and Indian
oceans: all oceanic crust is <
200 my old, and most of the
South Pacific formed <40
mya. White lines have been
added to highlight matching
geological outlines."

[Figure and text from
McCarthy (2003).]

Ophiolites have little to do with this debate other
than the fact the some conventional geologists
assume they were part of ancient and wide
oceans that have been "obducted" onto continents.
They then describe this assumption as evidence
for ancient and wide oceans.

[Quoting Carey:]

"'...The current dogma, that the Papuan ophiolite is obducted
mantle, is simply a theoretical meme, and misfits the field geology
and gravity field. It is amazing that this body was the paradigm on
which the obduction concept was founded and followed by a
flock of academic sheep who have never been to Papua!..."

"'...The thrust contact between the ophiolites of Papua and New
Caledonia with the ophiolites over the sediments is not disputed
- only the dip of the contact- steep diapiric or flat obduction. Field
data and gravity favour the former, only creed the latter because
current dogma regards the Papuan ophiolite belt as a huge
obducted sheet shallowly dipping to the northeast. Indeed the
Papuan Ophiolite is the type area on which the obduction
concept was [initially] founded...'