Creationists: what prevents you from accepting ToE?

[JustWondering2]

Yes i agree with the idea that the earth may still have been one piece of land at that time.... that would explain how all the animals could have come to the ark. And with the sheer weight of the great flood waters, a lot of movement of the crust would have occurred...the weight of the water itself causing great depressions in the oceans and breaking apart the lands. And there is the evidence of low lying river beds which extend out far into the oceans, so there was far less water on earth before the flood then there is now.

yeah and I thought Santa Clause was real too, until I grew up and found out he wasn't. I stopped believing in Fairy Tales a long, long time ago!

Just where did all this magic water come from? Better yet where did it go? If the whole Earth is cover w/ water where exactly would it all run off to? Waterworld was a movie and not a very good one at that. I bet you thought the Flintstones was real too?

 

[Pegg]

Then you'd have another problem, how did the kangaroos landed in Australia?

the same way the papua new guinean tribes people did when they first migrated to australia....they walked over reefs the way people did, and they were brought over by the papua new Guineans themselves.

there are kangaroo species in Papua new guinea

and you can see in this map just how close papua new guinea is to the top of australia

 

[Shermana]

Prove to us Pangea existed 12000 years ago and not 200 million years ago.

Maybe on another thread I'll discuss "Young Earth" "Catastrophic Tectonics", I've already had to deal with one person who made a deal about me responding to someone else's tangent.

Then you'd have another problem, how did the kangaroos landed in Australia?

By being in the part that was divided into Australia perhaps?

 

[shawn001]

Well NASA disagrees with you. "Continental Drift" in its form by Wegener was disproved. Also, I am not going against Plate Tectonics altogether, but suggesting that they are only part of the equation of which the new "Whole Earth Decompression" theory comprises.

History of plate tectonics

And I don't see how that disproves Whole Earth decompression Theory, or accounts for the problems in PT as a whole.

Science On the Leading Edge | Measuring Plate Movements

Did you understand at all why I brought up Whole Earth decompression Theory? Apparently not. There's also the issue of Mantle Plumes altogether:

Do plumes exist?

I totally understand.

"The paper attempts to explain continental drift by suggesting that "Whole-Earth decompression is the consequence of Earth formation from within a Jupiter-like protoplanet with subsequent loss of gases and ices and concomitant rebounding.

You might also want to know.

"After 4½ billion years, the Earth appears to be approaching the end of its decompression"

LOL




So you know I took plate tectonics in college and have been studying it ever since and live in one of the most geologically active places on the planet.


"Continental Drift" in its form by Wegener was disproved" but then proven again.

"in its form by Wegener was disproved" because he didn't have the technology or tools we do today.

We know they do we measure them with GPS very accurately.

"NASA disagrees with you"

No they don't in the slightest. PT is an extremely well supported scientific theory even by Nasa who uses satellites to measure the earth movements and study volcanoes and earthquakes.

You didn't discuss how many times yellowstone has erupted already. Mantle Plumes are well established in Plate tectonics, Yellowstone and Hawaii are good examples.

Most volcanoes are formed by plate tectonics however, with one plate sliding under the other.


I live in the ring of fire

 

[Shermana]

I totally understand.

Yet you fail to discuss anything about it other than the outline and the age issue.

"The paper attempts to explain continental drift by suggesting that "Whole-Earth decompression is the consequence of Earth formation from within a Jupiter-like protoplanet with subsequent loss of gases and ices and concomitant rebounding.

I don't have a problem with the idea that the Earth went through a process of Astrophysical Creation, I just disagree on the time frame and the exact process.

"After 4½ billion years, the Earth appears to be approaching the end of its decompression"

They just disagree with the age, not the process. It's the process that's in question here. Are you able to discuss the issues and gaps in PT theory? We can discuss the age concerns afterwards.

LOL

You can laugh but can you discuss the WEDT?

So you know I took plate tectonics in college and have been studying it ever since and live in one of the most geologically active places on the planet.

Good for you. Now can you discuss the problems with the theory and how WEDT accounts for them?

"Continental Drift" in its form by Wegener was disproved" but then proven again.

"in its form by Wegener was disproved" because he didn't have the technology or tools we do today.

Care to get into specifics?

We know they do we measure them with GPS very accurately.

Much differently nonetheless than what was being proposed.

"NASA disagrees with you"

No they don't in the slightest. PT is an extremely well supported scientific theory even by Nasa who uses satellites to measure the earth movements and study volcanoes and earthquakes.

Ummm...are you saying NASA does not say that Continental Drift was disproven? If not, please explain what NASA is saying there.

You didn't discuss how many times yellowstone has erupted already. Mantle Plumes are well established in Plate tectonics, Yellowstone and Hawaii are good examples.

Okay, you can brush off the entire website like that.

Most volcanoes are formed by plate tectonics however, with one plate sliding under the other.

Not necessarily arguing with the concept altogether, but with the current theory of how it happens, and I believe Catastrophic tectonics accounts for a lot of issues. The Mantle Plumes are not just immediately proven because you bring up Yellowstone and Hawaii, which are specifically discussed in linked articles on that site.

I live in the ring of fire

Good for you. Sounds like Metal Lyrics.

[/quote]

 

[shawn001]

12,000 years?


NASA RELEASES STUNNING IMAGES OF OUR INFANT UNIVERSE 2001

NASA today released the best "baby picture" of the Universe ever taken; the image contains such stunning detail that it may be one of the most important scientific results of recent years.

Scientists using NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), during a sweeping 12-month observation of the entire sky, captured the new cosmic portrait, capturing the afterglow of the big bang, called the cosmic microwave background.

"We've captured the infant universe in sharp focus, and from this portrait we can now describe the universe with unprecedented accuracy," said Dr. Charles L. Bennett of the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), Greenbelt Md., and the WMAP Principal Investigator. "The data are solid, a real gold mine," he said.

One of the biggest surprises revealed in the data is the first generation of stars to shine in the universe first ignited only 200 million years after the big bang, much earlier than many scientists had expected.

In addition, the new portrait precisely pegs the age of the universe at 13.7 billion years old, with a remarkably small one percent margin of error.

The WMAP team found that the big bang and Inflation theories continue to ring true. The contents of the universe include 4 percent atoms (ordinary matter), 23 percent of an unknown type of dark matter, and 73 percent of a mysterious dark energy. The new measurements even shed light on the nature of the dark energy, which acts as a sort of an anti-gravity.

"These numbers represent a milestone in how we view our universe," said Dr. Anne Kinney, NASA director for astronomy and physics. "This is a true turning point for cosmology."

The light we see today, as the cosmic microwave background, has traveled over 13 billion years to reach us. Within this light are infinitesimal patterns that mark the seeds of what later grew into clusters of galaxies and the vast structure we see all around us.

Patterns in the big bang afterglow were frozen in place only 380,000 years after the big bang, a number nailed down by this latest observation. These patterns are tiny temperature differences within this extraordinarily evenly dispersed microwave light bathing the universe, which now averages a frigid 2.73 degrees above absolute zero temperature. WMAP resolves slight temperature fluctuations, which vary by only millionths of a degree.

Theories about the evolution of the universe make specific predictions about the extent of these temperature patterns. Like a detective, the WMAP team compared the unique "fingerprint" of patterns imprinted on this ancient light with fingerprints predicted by various cosmic theories and found a match.

WMAP 1 Year Mission Results Press Release

1. WMAP definitively determined the age of the universe to be 13.73 billion years old to within 1% (0.12 billion years) -as recognized in the Guinness Book of World Records!

WMAP 1 Year Mission Results Press Release


This light comes to us from every direction.

Those red spots are where the stars and galaxies first evolved from.

No comment Shermana?


As far as Nasa disagreeing with me as well.

Nasa

Plate Tectonics/Earthquakes

Plate Tectonics/Earthquakes


Why is Nasa saying the age of the earth is 4.7 billion years old and the solar system around 5 billion? That's a big difference between that and 12,000 years old.

Not to mention we observe stars being born right now and solar systems being born and forming around the parent star.

There were humans in the NW United states then.

 

[shawn001]

Yes i agree with the idea that the earth may still have been one piece of land at that time.... that would explain how all the animals could have come to the ark. And with the sheer weight of the great flood waters, a lot of movement of the crust would have occurred...the weight of the water itself causing great depressions in the oceans and breaking apart the lands. And there is the evidence of low lying river beds which extend out far into the oceans, so there was far less water on earth before the flood then there is now.

There are

How many species exist on Earth?

Estimates range from 5 to 100 million; science has only identified 2 million


More animals have gone extint then are alive today, so dinosaurs and the animals that proceeded the dinosaurs and all these animals were on the ark? Not to mewntion, two of each kind or seven, because there was still the issues of Noah"s Sacrifice, if there were only two and he killed one, ops!

They would need a much bigger boat.

Or the fact there are places on earth is hasn't rain for 2 million years and one spot for 23 million years.

 

[Shermana]

No comment Shermana?


As far as Nasa disagreeing with me as well.

Nasa

Plate Tectonics/Earthquakes

Plate Tectonics/Earthquakes


Why is Nasa saying the age of the earth is 4.7 billion years old and the solar system around 5 billion? That's a big difference between that and 12,000 years old.

Not to mention we observe stars being born right now and solar systems being born and forming around the parent star.

There were humans in the NW United states then.

You tell me. Show from that article the evidence and reasons why they say its in the billions. As for stars being born and solar systems, I don't see why that would go against my Theology. We also see stars dying too. And try to stay consistent with what I'm saying, I said that NASA disagrees with you about Continental Drift, saying that it's "Disproven".

 

[shawn001]

Yet you fail to discuss anything about it other than the outline and the age issue.

I'll get to it, but this automatically was against what your saying.

"After 4½ billion years, the Earth appears to be approaching the end of its decompression"

So the theory you promote for young earth doesn't.

I don't have a problem with the idea that the Earth went through a process of Astrophysical Creation, I just disagree on the time frame and the exact process.

"Astrophysical Creation" Interesting term.

Try stellar accretion which is how all stars and planets form due to gravity and why they are all "round."

You might want to also look into how the moon formed in all this as well. Why are there so many craters on it and all the rocky planets? The age of the moon matches the age of the sun and solar system forming and the planets. Roughly 5 billion or a little more years. We also in the milkyway galaxy which also formed, we have pictures before any stars or galaxies or planets formed, which is something you don't get here, you don't understand what the CMB actually is in the first place.


They just disagree with the age, not the process. It's the process that's in question here. Are you able to discuss the issues and gaps in PT theory? We can discuss the age concerns afterwards.

The age doesn't matter in the process?

You can laugh but can you discuss the WEDT?

I am laughing because it was proven way back in the mid 1800's to early 1900's the earth was older then 12,000 years for a fact, millions of them, you don't know even what evidence supports it all.

Good for you. Now can you discuss the problems with the theory and how WEDT accounts for them?

"Continental Drift" in its form by Wegener was disproved" but then proven again.

Care to get into specifics?

Much differently nonetheless than what was being proposed.

"NASA disagrees with you"

Ummm...are you saying NASA does not say that Continental Drift was disproven? If not, please explain what NASA is saying there.

Okay, you can brush off the entire website like that.
Not necessarily arguing with the concept altogether, but with the current theory of how it happens, and I believe Catastrophic tectonics accounts for a lot of issues. The Mantle Plumes are not just immediately proven because you bring up Yellowstone and Hawaii, which are specifically discussed in linked articles on that site.

Good for you. Sounds like Metal Lyrics.

[/quote]


You know there is an ancient ocean under the great lakes. The land at the great lakes are still raising from the weight of the glaceirs during the ice ages. The columbia river was formed by a huge flood throughout the western united state 13,000 years ago

Glacial Lake Missoula and the Ice Age Floods

In the middle east between africa and the asian continet use to be the Tethys Ocean which when the India continent slammed into asia is one reason why there is an old ocean floor at 22,000 feet in the Himalaya's.

WEDT

"After 4½ billion years, the Earth appears to be approaching the end of its decompression"

So the theory you promote for young earth doesn't.


"They just disagree with the age, not the process."

Why is that?

 

[Shermana]

You know there is an ancient ocean under the great lakes. The land at the great lakes are still raising from the weight of the glaceirs during the ice ages. The columbia river was formed by a huge flood throughout the western united state 13,000 years ago

And we know precisely how long ago it took place because....?

By the way, by your dodge I'm assuming you want to avoid discussing the specifics of WEDT other than the age issue, as I mentioned.

Glacial Lake Missoula and the Ice Age Floods

Feel free to show how we know it took place 13,000 years ago.

In the middle east between africa and the asian continet use to be the Tethys Ocean which when the India continent slammed into asia is one reason why there is an old ocean floor at 22,000 feet in the Himalaya's.

Ah, the issue of India slamming into Asia is a debatable concept. Though you may disagree with the source of this quote, from Newgeology, can you argue against the sources it quotes from? You have to at least admit, the theory of India slamming into Asia requires a LOT of coincidence....assuming you understand what's being referred to of course.

The right place for India to "dock" into would amount to a remarkable coincidence (Mantura, 1972). There is, however, overwhelming geological and paleontological evidence that India has been an integral part of Asia since Proterozoic or earlier time (Chatterjee and Hotton, 1986; Ahmad, 1990; Saxena and Gupta, 1990; Meyerhoff et al., 1991). There is also abundant evidence that the Tethys Sea in the region of the present Alpine-Himalayan orogenic belt was never a deep, wide ocean but rather a narrow, predominantly shallow, intracontinental seaway (Bhat, 1987; Dickins, 1987, 1994c; McKenzie, 1987; Stöcklin, 1989).

WEDT

"After 4½ billion years, the Earth appears to be approaching the end of its decompression"

So apparently you do NOT want to discuss the actual theory other than the age concerns as I mentioned.

So the theory you promote for young earth doesn't.

Not necessarily. The theory itself doesn't really go into the billions of years, they just say what the end result seems to be based on the current "models" with their own. Unless I'm mistaken.

"They just disagree with the age, not the process."

Why is that?

Because they don't want to stray too far from the conventional theory in order to not be lump summed with "Creationists" for the sake of academic circles. Other than that, I don't think you can actually discuss what WEDT is saying.

 

[shawn001]

You tell me. Show from that article the evidence and reasons why they say its in the billions. As for stars being born and solar systems, I don't see why that would go against my Theology. We also see stars dying too. And try to stay consistent with what I'm saying, I said that NASA disagrees with you about Continental Drift, saying that it's "Disproven".

You really don't get astronomy or cosmology here and don't understand really what the CMB means. Everything from that point on evolved, stars first, and galaxies and planets.

Another reason why you are wrong again is the formation of the moon and earth. You don't understand these processes.



"I said that NASA disagrees with you about Continental Drift, saying that it's "Disproven"

Wegener's version of it was, not Continental Drift which we meausre accurately with GPS now. Nasa does some of the measurments and so does the USGS.

18 November 2006

Continental drift: the final proof

NASA's scientists have released the first direct measurements of continental drift. They show that the Atlantic is gradually widening, and that Australia is receding from South America and heading for Hawaii. The crustal dynamics project, run from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, uses two techniques to measure the separation of places on the Earth to an accuracy of a few centimetres. Around the world, there are more than 20 stations equipped for one or both.
Relative motions of the stations are expected, according to plate tectonics, the current theory of continental drift. This says that the Earth's crust is made of several plates moving about the planet, and most of the major plates carry a continent on their backs. The exception is the large plate that floors the Pacific Ocean;

Sign in to read: Continental drift: the final proof - 18 November 2006 - New Scientist

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I said that NASA disagrees with you about Continental Drift, saying that it's "Disproven".

Missions - LAGEOS 1&2 - NASA Science
The LAGEOS mission consists of the following key goals:
Provide an accurate measurement of the satellite's position with respect to Earth,

• Determine the planet's shape (geoid) and,
• Determine tectonic plate movements associated with continental drift.

:sad:

 

[shawn001]

Shermana if you really want to know the real facts.

These are some of the best science on the earth and how we know what we know and that is the earth is 4.57 billion years old.

We have mapped the Mantle plume under yellowstone. It erupts roughly every 650,000 years and is past that point now and the ground is rising.

How The Earth Was Made.Yellowstone.

A look at Yellowstone National Park and the caldera super volcano beneath it that is pushing up the land and long overdue for what could be a titanic eruption.

[youtube]UizPBG4mzqg[/youtube]
How The Earth Was Made.Yellowstone. - YouTube

How the earth was made: Ring of Fire

There's a lot of information in How the Earth Was Made, but perhaps the most interesting relates to time. Quite often, the numbers are so staggering that scientists refer to it as "deep time," an appropriate term when one grapples with the notion that our planet is 4.5 billion years old, or that the oceans were formed by rainfall that lasted literally millions of years, or that 700 million years ago, Earth was completely covered by ice that was a mile thick, with surface temperatures reaching minus 40 degrees Fahrenheit. On the other end of the scale are numbers that seem surprisingly small: for instance, it wasn't until 220 years ago that the accepted church doctrine regarding the planet's age (no more than 6000 years, according to the Bible) was seriously challenged and that the key to its past was found in rocks, not scripture, while the discovery that dinosaurs once ruled the Earth came considerably later than that.


[youtube]uapTWKDf9YY[/youtube]
How the earth was made: Ring of Fire.s02e07.HDTV.720p - YouTube


There is a spot in this desert that was formed by plate tectonics, where it hasn't rained in 23 million years and they explain why they know that.

How the Earth Was Made Driest Place on Earth

A look at the driest place on Earth, the Atacama Desert in South America which is 50 times dryer than Death Valley; and how even in such a barren place, bacteria can still thrive.

[youtube]OkXnWfd2fcw[/youtube]
Driest Place on Earth S01E06 - How the Earth Was Made - History Channel - YouTube


Under part of the great lakes is one of the biggest salt mine in the world, because there use to be an ancient SALT WATER ocean there before the great lakes were formed by the ICE age.

How the earth was made: Great Lakes

[youtube]jQhwB3FTVo8[/youtube]
How the earth was made: Great Lakes .s01e07. HDTV. 720p - YouTube


If the flood story were true that much fresh water would stop the oceans currents and everything would die, which happened in the past from the largest volcanic eruption in history that we know of called the siberian traps. But there is not enough water and that much water pressure in the atmophere would cause the air pressure to flatten anything on the surface of the planet.


The siberian traps eruption conincided with the largest mast extintion on the planet,

While a worst-case-scenario supervolcano eruption sometime in the future would be catastrophic for large parts of the world, that destruction would be minor compared with what scientists believe could be the largest lava flow in Earth's history: the Siberian Traps of 251 million years ago.

The gigantic lava flow in Siberia lasted upward of a million years and flooded an area about the size of the lower 48 United States with layer upon layer of dark basalt lava — thousands of feet thick.


Some geologists suspect the eruption was caused by an extra-large plume of hot material welling up from the edge of the Earth's core. But what makes it especially important is that the Siberian Traps is the prime suspect in wiping out 90 percent of all living species 251 million years ago — the most severe extinction event in Earth's history.

Discovery Channel :: Supervolcano

Since this was written a scientist proved the extintion was caused by the supervolcano, which was actually a huge crack in the earths crust.

 

[Shermana]

You really don't get astronomy or cosmology here and don't understand really what the CMB means. Everything from that point on evolved, stars first, and galaxies and planets.

Okay, so you were trying to disprove something specific I said there with facts and evidence? I must be missing it.

Another reason why you are wrong again is the formation of the moon and earth. You don't understand these processes.

I see, and was this supposed to be a direct counter to something I said?

"I said that NASA disagrees with you about Continental Drift, saying that it's "Disproven"

Wegener's version of it was, not Continental Drift which we meausre accurately with GPS now. Nasa does some of the measurments and so does the USGS.

While today's "Continental Drift" is nothing like what CD was proposing as far as its motions, which I hinted at originally when I first said "Wegener's version". As for "Continental Drift" as we speak of it today, it is much different than what Wegener was saying, it's not even really known as
"Continental Drift" so much today. There is a difference between the process of what we call "Continental Drift" and the Theory by Wegener.

18 November 2006

Continental drift: the final proof

NASA's scientists have released the first direct measurements of continental drift. They show that the Atlantic is gradually widening, and that Australia is receding from South America and heading for Hawaii. The crustal dynamics project, run from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, uses two techniques to measure the separation of places on the Earth to an accuracy of a few centimetres. Around the world, there are more than 20 stations equipped for one or both.
Relative motions of the stations are expected, according to plate tectonics, the current theory of continental drift. This says that the Earth's crust is made of several plates moving about the planet, and most of the major plates carry a continent on their backs. The exception is the large plate that floors the Pacific Ocean;

Sign in to read: Continental drift: the final proof - 18 November 2006 - New Scientist

[/quote]

Now can you prove a uniform rate of movement and can you prove that the plates are still moving? Thank you in advance for the indisputable proof that the plates are still moving, would love to see the evidence.

 

[shawn001]

Okay, so you were trying to disprove something specific I said there with facts and evidence? I must be missing it.
I see, and was this supposed to be a direct counter to something I said?


While today's "Continental Drift" is nothing like what CD was proposing as far as its motions, which I hinted at originally when I first said "Wegener's version". As for "Continental Drift" as we speak of it today, it is much different than what Wegener was saying, it's not even really known as
"Continental Drift" so much today. There is a difference between the process of what we call "Continental Drift" and the Theory by Wegener.

Now can you prove a uniform rate of movement and can you prove that the plates are still moving? Thank you in advance for the indisputable proof that the plates are still moving, would love to see the evidence.[/quote]

The websitre you quoted from had this information.

Other posts already showed this, but again here you go.

USGS

Current plate movement can be tracked directly by means of ground-based or space-based geodetic measurements; geodesy is the science of the size and shape of the Earth. Ground-based measurements are taken with conventional but very precise ground-surveying techniques, using laser-electronic instruments. However, because plate motions are global in scale, they are best measured by satellite-based methods. The late 1970s witnessed the rapid growth of space geodesy, a term applied to space-based techniques for taking precise, repeated measurements of carefully chosen points on the Earth's surface separated by hundreds to thousands of kilometers. The three most commonly used space-geodetic techniques -- very long baseline interferometry (VLBI), satellite laser ranging (SLR), and the Global Positioning System (GPS) -- are based on technologies developed for military and aerospace research, notably radio astronomy and satellite tracking.
Among the three techniques, to date the GPS has been the most useful for studying the Earth's crustal movements. Twenty-one satellites are currently in orbit 20,000 km above the Earth as part of the NavStar system of the U.S. Department of Defense. These satellites continuously transmit radio signals back to Earth. To determine its precise position on Earth (longitude, latitude, elevation), each GPS ground site must simultaneously receive signals from at least four satellites, recording the exact time and location of each satellite when its signal was received. By repeatedly measuring distances between specific points, geologists can determine if there has been active movement along faults or between plates. The separations between GPS sites are already being measured regularly around the Pacific basin. By monitoring the interaction between the Pacific Plate and the surrounding, largely continental plates, scientists hope to learn more about the events building up to earthquakes and volcanic eruptions in the circum-Pacific Ring of Fire. Space-geodetic data have already confirmed that the rates and direction of plate movement, averaged over several years, compare well with rates and direction of plate movement averaged over millions of years.


"Global Positioning System
Scientists can measure the movement of plates and the rise of the Himalayas through a modern system called Global Positioning System (GPS). This technique has been used by planes and ships for a long time to determine their position accurately. Recent advancements in the system has improved its accuracy tremendously and the GPS is a tremendous navigational aid.

To achieve their objective, the scientists first set up several survey points at different places in the Himalayan region. They place a GPS receiver at each survey point which records its position from several satellites circling the earth above it. Measurements are taken continuously each time the satellites pass over the survey points. The survey points are linked by radio telemetry and e-mail to the headquarters. The scientists have used the data thus collected and have measured the relative motion of the points with an accuracy of 3 mm. Using this technique, the scientists have been able to find that the Indian plate is moving northward at the rate of 18 mm a year and that the Himalayas are rising at about 5 mm a year.

The Himalayas - Geology - Global Positioning System

Plot Real Time GPS data from various sites on the west coast of North America to visualize plate movements. The map below indicates the locations of the different stations for which data are currently available.

Science On the Leading Edge | Measuring Plate Movements


Tracking the Movement of Earth's Plates

"In the past year, the coastal community on the Kenai Peninsula has moved 35 millimeters-about one-and-one-half inches-closer to Fairbanks."

​

For more than a decade, Freymueller has used GPS to track the movement of Earth's plates--gigantic fragments of rock and soil that are more than 1,000 miles across and are up to 40 miles thick. About a dozen plates make up the Earth's crust. Alaska is a seismic hot spot because much of the state sits on or near where these plates meet. The Pacific Plate collides with and dives below the North American Plate along the Pacific coastline of Alaska. Movement of the plates in 1964 caused the Good Friday Earthquake.

Tracking the Movement of Earth's Plates, Alaska Science Forum



"The pacific plate rotates around a point south of Australia. Around Hawaii, the plate is moving at about 7 cm/year, or about as fast as finger mails grow. "

Pacific Plate Motion


Hawaii is moving NW towards alaska.


USGS
​

About GPS

Accuracy

Even in the worst weather conditions you can know your location to within 100 meters (about 300 feet). That accuracy is fine for most navigation purposes. But since the motion across faults, such as the San Andreas, is usually less than 5 centimeters (2 inches) per year, the USGS has to use special techniques to get much better accuracy.
How does the USGS use GPS to measure fault motion?


We want to know how stations near active faults move relative to each other. When we occupy several stations at the same time, and all stations observe the same satellites, the relative positions of all the stations can be determined very precisely. Often we are able to determine the distances between stations, even over distances up to several 100 miles, to better than 5 millimeters (about a 1/4 of an inch).

About GPS
​

 

[shawn001]

And we know precisely how long ago it took place because....?

Of a ton of evidence, which of course you didn't read from the USGS. The evidence out here is everywhere, both geologically and historically. Humans lived here when it happened.






By the way, by your dodge I'm assuming you want to avoid discussing the specifics of WEDT other than the age issue, as I mentioned.

When you know the specifics we can talk about it, but first you don't know them yourself.

There saying 4 billion years and your saying the earth is only 12,000 years old. Which is completely against the evidence of the entire planet and history including how the earth formed from planetary accretion in the first place or the moon or the van allen belts when the iron core of the earth cooled. Without the van allen belts radation would fry all life on it. This all were processes that took you don't understand. Maybe if you did t would become clearer to you.



Feel free to show how we know it took place 13,000 years ago.

USGS


A Virtual Tour
The impact from Glacial Lake Missoula and the Missoula floods can be seen in parts of Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon. Testifying to the cataclysm are the ancient shorelines, ripple marks, scoured lakes, dry channels, falls, and flood debris that are still visible after nearly 12,000 years. Without seeing this evidence it is hard to imagine the enormity of the geologic event.

Glacial Lake Missoula and the Ice Age Floods




Ah, the issue of India slamming into Asia is a debatable concept. Though you may disagree with the source of this quote, from Newgeology, can you argue against the sources it quotes from? You have to at least admit, the theory of India slamming into Asia requires a LOT of coincidence....assuming you understand what's being referred to of course.

No its not its widely accepted based on millions of facts that totally support it.




So apparently you do NOT want to discuss the actual theory other than the age concerns as I mentioned.


Not necessarily. The theory itself doesn't really go into the billions of years, they just say what the end result seems to be based on the current "models" with their own. Unless I'm mistaken.

"They just disagree with the age, not the process."


Because they don't want to stray too far from the conventional theory in order to not be lump summed with "Creationists" for the sake of academic circles. Other than that, I don't think you can actually discuss what WEDT is saying.

LOL, you can't discuss it yourself here first. So its a creationist theory? You do know one guys hypothesis against 100 year or more of millions of facts that support Plate tectonics and earth quakes and volcanoes already is a problem, not to mention the same GPS shows tidal bulges from the moon and sun and we know



"
Expanding Earth or Growing Earth is a hypothesis asserting that the position and relative movement of continents is at least partially due to the volume of the Earth increasing. Conversely, geophysical global cooling was the hypothesis that various features could be explained by the earth contracting.
While suggested historically, since the recognition of plate tectonics in the 1970s scientific consensus has rejected any expansion or contraction of the Earth."

"In 2005 J. Marvin Herndon postulated what he calls whole-earth decompression dynamics, which he describes as a unified theory combining elements of plate tectonics and earth expansion. He suggests that Earth formed from a Jupiter-sized gas giant by catastrophic loss of its gaseous atmosphere with subsequent decompression and expansion of the rocky remnant planet resulting in decompression cracks at continental margins which are filled in by basalts from mid-ocean ridges.


Scientific consensus
The theory had never developed a plausible and verifiable mechanism of action, but neither had any of its competing theories.[1] By the late 1970s the theory of plate tectonics made all other theories obsolete following the discovery of subduction, which was found to be an important part of a mechanism of action.[1]
Generally, the scientific community finds that there is no evidence in support of the Expanding Earth theory, and there is evidence against it:

One guys postulating and suggesting are not scientific theories. What has been new since 2005 on it?

Is the planet shrinking or expanding?

From astronomy we already know that didn't happen when the earth and moon formed.

Do you know what subduction is in plate tectonics?

 

[painted wolf]

Now can you prove a uniform rate of movement and can you prove that the plates are still moving? Thank you in advance for the indisputable proof that the plates are still moving, would love to see the evidence.

Earthquakes are the result of the plates movement. And spreading at the plates has been measured for decades in places like California, The Great Rift Valley, Iceland, Hawaii and so on.

Long strings of sensors on either side of a fault line measure the distance between one another over time. Or in years past it was measurements between specially placed posts.

Exact rates vary but it tends to be a couple centimeters a year or so.
Understanding plate motions [This Dynamic Earth, USGS]
REVEL: A model for Recent plate velocities from space geodesy

Hope this helps.

wa:do

 

[Matthew78]

Yes, I am a YEC, and telling me that the argument is used by a spin-doctor and that his book is ridiculous is a ridiculous attempt to smear the argument rather than disprove it as if he's the only one who uses such an argument. Perhaps you'd like to actually comment on the issue? In detail?

Actually, it's not a ridiculous attempt to smear the argument so much as it was an attack Sarfati's book as ridiculous. His book is not merely ridiculous because it uses this argument; it's ridiculous because it attempts to defend the ridiculous belief of YEC. It amazes me how an abominably arrogant man like Sarfati ridicules people who critique his work when they lack credentials. However, Kevin R Henke is a qualified scientist with a doctorate in chemistry. So, he's as qualified as anyone to critique Sarfati's nonsense. What does Dr. Henke have to say about Sarfati's argument?

Like most young-Earth creationist books that I've read, Jonathan Sarfati's "Refuting Evolution" is full of elementary errors in astronomy, chemistry, geology and the nature of science. For example, when arguing for a "young" Universe, Sarfati (p. 113) claims that no stage 3 supernova remnants exist in our or neighboring galaxies. However, 166.2+2.5, 180.0-1.7, 189.1+3.0, 279.0+1.1, and 290.1-0.8 are just five undisputed examples of these "nonexistent" remnants.

You can find his review here Jonathan Sarfati

 

[johnhanks]

i just dont think that all possible scenarios should be discounted. Sloths are there so they obviously got there somehow. The animal may have walked themselves there...

You have seen a sloth, haven't you? Walking is not what they're famous for.

... but the most likely scenario is that they were taken there by people migrating.

Love it. Beautiful picture of Noah's descendants packing for their long trek to South America and squabbling over who's going to carry the sloths. "Don't look at me - I've got the goddam tapirs." "You're complaining? Try a pair of anacondas in your backpack."

 

[Pegg]

Love it. Beautiful picture of Noah's descendants packing for their long trek to South America and squabbling over who's going to carry the sloths. "Don't look at me - I've got the goddam tapirs." "You're complaining? Try a pair of anacondas in your backpack."

LOL
that was quite funny