Geological dating techniques

[time]

Why not?

Because we do not know about how the world of atoms used to work.

 

[joshua 1 9]

rates of subduction

I thought the rate was about the same rate that fingernails grow.

 

[time]

The fact that you are asking about how "fast" these processes occur means that you've not studied the rates of plate motion.

The fact that you cite motion of plates shows you cannot address the evidence and lack of evidences of said motions in the distant past. Or can you?

But despite this, you claim that the speed of plate motion has slowed, except that too is ignorant. Plate motions and rates of subduction aren't constant for any given boundary or plate, let alone through time.

Right, but the rates are used in determining time. You realize that?

Rates of plate motion, subduction, and spreading are not constants through time and it is not claimed to be so by the theory of plate tectonics. Meaning you've constructed a straw man of the scientific theory.

An example of invoking great ages is here.

"The rate of spreading along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge averages about 2.5 centimeters per year (cm/yr), or 25 km in a million years. This rate may seem slow by human standards, but because this process has been going on for millions of years, it has resulted in plate movement of thousands of kilometers. Seafloor spreading over the past 100 to 200 million years has caused the Atlantic Ocean to grow from a tiny inlet of water between the continents of Europe, Africa, and the Americas into the vast ocean that exists today."
Understanding plate motions [This Dynamic Earth, USGS]

As for the evidence for ridge push and slab pull, it's basic physics. Something with mass and momentum, will tend to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. Plates move because they are massive, have a large mass and therefore a lot of inertia and momentum, and the sediments and water on subducting slabs provides lubrication. This isn't a controversial scientific idea. This is a core principle of the scientific theory of plate tectonics. Rejecting it would be akin to rejecting any other scientific theory for equally ignorant reasons.

You have no idea what forces did or did not act upon the plates. You have no idea about the constitution or consistency of mass long ago either. By the way you said "Plates move because they are massive, have a large mass and therefore a lot of inertia and momentum-"
Ha. You think things move because they are big?

You sound like someone who once took a geology course in college, but who's understanding of the material was lacking. Resulting in an overconfident ignorance

It is not a lack of understanding of what they say that is an issue. It is a great comprehension of the few facts in the fiction of their stories. All purely a matter of belief.

 

[time]

Doesn't change the fact that those footprints are not consistent with modern humans as you had claimed before.

Yes, they are consistent with pre flood man. They do not need to be post flood prints. The issue is that are possibly human prints. You thought there were no physical changes in mankind since Noah's day?

 

[time]

I thought the rate was about the same rate that fingernails grow.

Right, slow.

 

[time]

The cause of seduction was a catastrophic event. After the dinosaurs began to devour each other. The story of Noah and his flood was a shadow & type of the event that took place at Pangaea.

Could be.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, they are consistent with pre flood man. They do not need to be post flood prints. The issue is that are possibly human prints. You thought there were no physical changes in mankind since Noah's day?

Nope, there was no flood. Once again, you need to learn what is and what is not evidence. The evidence clearly tells us that the flood of Noah never occurred.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have what to say about it? One technique is drift and things like rates of subduction, is it not?

What do you need to know. And your second question is poorly formed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why does it show any rate of movement? Rather it shows changes in isotope ratios, does it not?

The isotope ratios are evidence for the age of the rock. The distance between the islands and the ages gives us a rate of movement.

 

[TBDude65]

The fact that you cite motion of plates shows you cannot address the evidence and lack of evidences of said motions in the distant past. Or can you?
Right, but the rates are used in determining time. You realize that?


An example of invoking great ages is here.

"The rate of spreading along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge averages about 2.5 centimeters per year (cm/yr), or 25 km in a million years. This rate may seem slow by human standards, but because this process has been going on for millions of years, it has resulted in plate movement of thousands of kilometers. Seafloor spreading over the past 100 to 200 million years has caused the Atlantic Ocean to grow from a tiny inlet of water between the continents of Europe, Africa, and the Americas into the vast ocean that exists today."
Understanding plate motions [This Dynamic Earth, USGS]


You have no idea what forces did or did not act upon the plates. You have no idea about the constitution or consistency of mass long ago either. By the way you said "Plates move because they are massive, have a large mass and therefore a lot of inertia and momentum-"
Ha. You think things move because they are big?
It is not a lack of understanding of what they say that is an issue. It is a great comprehension of the few facts in the fiction of their stories. All purely a matter of belief.

Thank you for demonstrating my point

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, they are consistent with pre flood man.

Based on what evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

Because we do not know about how the world of atoms used to work.

Yes, we do.

CF210: Constancy of Radioactive Decay Rates

 

[Loudmouth]

The cause of seduction was a catastrophic event.

Please, tell us more. Seduction was certainly a problem for Samson, but I didn't know it was related to catastrophic events.

 

[Astrophile]

No doubt it tells you things. I think dad pointed out here for years that the present is not actually the key to the past. I have pointed out even longer than that, how time possibly does not exist beyond the bubble of earth. I really don't want to argue about it. I do not accept beliefs about the unknown that you offer.

The evidence says man was here more than twice the time you have believed. That evidence is not in the form of fossils. Dad pointed out that there was no fossils for man in the days of Noah. The evidence I see in recent news is footprints!

"Fossil footprints challenge established theories of human evolution
The footprints are approximately 5.7 million years old and were made at a time when previous research puts our ancestors in Africa -- with ape-like feet."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170831134221.htm
Your story was wrong. Now if you could actually go deep down and observe how things actually are and actually work under the earth, I have no doubt that your stories would be blown to kingdom come there as well. Science preys on ignorance.

There are more details in the original paper, 'Possible hominin footprints from the late Miocene (c. 5.7 ma) of Crete?' by G.D. Gierlinski et al. (2017), Proc. Geologists' Association. You can read the full paper on http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S00167878170113X or Redirecting .

 

[Loudmouth]

Where on this graph do you see rapid subduction?

The Formation of the Hawaiian Islands

Just for fun, I calculated a regression for these data points and came up with an average speed of 7.7 cm/year for the Pacific plate. The measured speed of the Pacific plate is reported to be 7-11 cm/year.

Plate Tectonics | Pacific Northwest Seismic Network

Coincidence? I think not.

 

[time]

Nope, there was no flood. Once again, you need to learn what is and what is not evidence. The evidence clearly tells us that the flood of Noah never occurred.

There was a flood. There was a first man as far as anyone knows.

 

[time]

What do you need to know. And your second question is poorly formed.

On the issue of suducted plates, and tectonics we already saw in the article that science doesn't understand. What more can you say?

 

[time]

The isotope ratios are evidence for the age of the rock.

I don't want to argue with your beliefs. Ratios are evidence that ratios exist, not why they exist. I already told you I believe dad had it right on that issue. Nothing you can say about it. As long as there may have been another nature nothing you say really matters. I am not here to ask you if you are capable of realizing you lost a long time ago. Believe whatever you like.

The distance between the islands and the ages gives us a rate of movement.

Not unless the ratios were formed the way we now see them being formed. That you don't know. So the changes in ratios could be representing weeks rather than millions of years for all we know. I can't allow the genie of great ages to be invoked.

 

[time]

Thank you for demonstrating my point

Then you are limited in what you know on the issue of the various ways dates are compared and determined.

 

[time]

Based on what evidence?

On the evidence that the bible says man existed then. On the basis that a lot of changes happened since then. So why not have mankind undergo some changes in the heel of the foot and such? That is a lot more basis than you leaping to wild conclusions that no man was here, and some supposed ancestor left the prints!