My Favorite (to date) take down of Creationism.

[_The CCC]

The expanding earth construct was debunked long ago. Plate tectonics "fits" much better.

Along with erosion there is uplift.

Not really. Plate tectonics works for a few places on the earth. But it is a working theory for most people. But in my opinion it falls apart in too many places. But if it makes you happy then I am happy for you.

Funny how you did not ask one question about why I hold this opinion. But that is the way of this world. You join a group and hold to their belief system. Ask no questions just believe.

I don't trust any group. And I know that what I hold as opinions may be far off. Actual truth and actually history may be way different than anything we have imagined so far. As a species we overreach all of the time. I am no different.

The mid-Atlantic Ridge which actually goers around the earth is just one of the evidences for plate tectonics. Navels and opinions come to mind.
SEE http://www.techtimes.com/articles/6560/ ... y-past.htm

I assumed that you already had that belief. I have no idea as to what that statement means.

Of course any belief my be incorrect. Godzilla may be real, but there is little to no evidence to support such a hypothesis, outside of a few cheesy Japanese horror flicks.

[_Franktalk]

Anomalies eventually get resolved Frank. It seems to be another fertile god of the gaps area for you however. When you accept some random pseudoscientific idea based upon your anomalies then the result is that current facts and observations that are the basis for standard scientific theories now become anomalies for your pseudoscientific "theories."

Look at your first link, Plate Tectonics: A Paradigm Under Threat, by David Pratt

Who is this David Pratt?
http://research.easybib.com/research/in ... %22&page=1

There are a couple of other "articles" by David Pratt:

Crop Circles and Their Message
UFO's: The Psychic Dimension

Even a broken clock is correct twice a day. If you can't separate out a message from the messenger then you have a closed mind. All of this proper channel stuff you post is getting old. I am sure if you made a list of all of the people you would accept a new theory from it would also be a list of the most stuck in a paradigm scientist as well. New ideas come from people not stuck. If someone believes in god you also discount anything they have to say. That is your problem. You have no respect for any belief system but your own.

[_Franktalk]

Of course any belief my be incorrect. Godzilla may be real, but there is little to no evidence to support such a hypothesis, outside of a few cheesy Japanese horror flicks.

What do you mean Godzilla is not real!!!!! I saw a movie about Godzilla made in America.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-EEqJ9HyTk

[_LittleNipper]

Little Nipper's article mentioned a model built around the idea of the continents separating at the time of the flood. This has been disproved.

GPS measurements of the various rates of motion of tectonic plates confirms radiometric dating! The following are quotes from the article referenced below.

But in this case, YECs can make up any excuse they want for why they don’t believe those dating methods and why the estimates of rates based on them are flawed. It doesn’t matter. In fact, the more problems they say they find with radiometric dating methods, the worse their problem becomes. This is because if the dating methods and rate estimates are bogus, then there should be no correlation with rate estimates based on real-time GPS measurements.

What young earth model would predict that rates based on “bogus” million-year old dates should yield the same rates measured by technology that we have in our cell phones? None. In fact most young earth models include some sort of accelerated plate motions in the past, with plate motions only slowing to their current rates in the past several thousand years.

So, according to current YEC hypotheses, estimates of past plate-movement rates should not equal rates measured in the present. These data falsify the accelerated plate tectonics model of flood geology.

Why would radiometric dating, which supposedly is a useless tool for estimating the true age of the earth by YEC reckoning, provide near-precise estimates of current plate motions, which are confirmed by a completely unrelated form of measurement?

For the YEC hypothesis, they shouldn’t. And yet they do.

The only reasonable explanation for what we see here is that the radiometric dating methods provide faithful estimates of the real ages of the rocks. The GPS data are yet another independent confirmation of the validity of radiometric dating. The fact that radiometric based dates predicted rates that were confirmed later by another method serve to confirm the former method.

This is no conspiracy. Forty years ago, scientists could not have faked the radiometric dating to derive estimates of plate motions that they knew we would find in the future. How could anyone have known that one plate should move 120 mm/year and another one only 2 mm/year? They simply calculated ages, did simple division, and derived a rate. Because no one could have known the modern rate of plate motion, there was no way for any scientists to fudge numbers and bend dates to particular assumptions about rates, as YECs have long claimed. The plate-movement rates are unbiased, and I think we can be reasonably sure that satellite measurements are unbiased recordings of the rates as well. The fact that the dates match one another is very strong confirmation of the constant motion of the plates over long periods of time.

Let me provide another example to further show this is not just some cherry-picked data. Below (Fig. 3) is one additional example that I have used in one of my lectures. It shows the relationship between the distance of an Hawaiian Island or seamount from the active volcano. By dividing the age of the island as determined by radiometric dating by the distance you can estimate the speed at which the pacific plate is moving toward the northwest. This was done more than 40 years ago. In the past decade we have been able to measure the current rate of motion via GPS technology and it is very close to 8.6 cm/year. This is an incredible coincidence if radiometric dating methods are unreliable or if there has been accelerated decay of radionucleotides as some YECs have claimed. Rather than a coincidence these similar estimates are a powerful testimony to the accuracy of plate tectonic models and of the accuracy of radiometric dating techniques.

http://thenaturalhistorian.com/2014/09/ ... ic-dating/

How do we know how fast each specific plate has been moving for the last 6000 years? Nature is hardly consistent and while a scientist may accept averages, what we see now is no absolute measure for what transpired in the past. And incredible as it may seem, ALL things are possible with GOD.

[_LittleNipper]

The student asks the professor why? The professor either assumes God or assumes chance. But to exclude GOD is to exclude philosophic thought and soul searching. http://creation.com/15-questions

[_spotlight]

How do we know how fast each specific plate has been moving for the last 6000 years? Nature is hardly consistent and while a scientist may accept averages, what we see now is no absolute measure for what transpired in the past. And incredible as it may seem, ALL things are possible with GOD.

Because the averages measured by radiometric means match the instantaneous movement measured by GPS. If the plates moved faster in the past then for the average speed to match they would need to be moving slower now.

To restate in hopes of something clicking, if the calculated average speed matches the instantaneous measured speed, then the plates moving faster in the past would not result in an average calculation that matched, but rather in an average speed that was too great compared with GPS measurements.

[_spotlight]

Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

That's debatable. Show me where you have been right twice in a day.

If you can't separate out a message from the messenger then you have a closed mind.

Because GR and QM came from those who believed in Bigfoot and a flat earth?

All of this proper channel stuff you post is getting old.

Which explains why you appeal to THE proper channel of gods and scripture??

I am sure if you made a list of all of the people you would accept a new theory from it would also be a list of the most stuck in a paradigm scientist as well. New ideas come from people not stuck.

Really Frank? The paradigm they are "stuck in" is called the scientific method. There has not been any significant advancement without that paradigm. Scientists would not be doing science if they believed as you assert that current science is correct about everything and there was nothing new to learn. So you are incorrect at a very basic level.

You are also way off in thinking that new science overthrows old science as if tomorrow with enough new information the Earth will no longer be viewed as orbiting the Sun. GR did not overthrow classical mechanics. It improved it. They both agree most of the time. QM did not overthrow it either. At the everyday scale they agree. If details of plate tectonic theory change, the fact that the plates are moving about will not change. It will remain a fact.

If someone believes in god you also discount anything they have to say. That is your problem. You have no respect for any belief system but your own.

Here you are wrong again. I discount anything that is said that is not backed by evidence and the scientific method. I fully accept Ken Miller's work showing that humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor even though he believes in god.

I am not in the habit of entertaining beliefs about anything. Like speculation it is a waste of time and energy. When enough is known about a subject for a consensus to be reached is soon enough to accept the consensus recognizing that it may be improved upon at a later time. Disagreeing with such a consensus because of beliefs is your arena.

[_The CCC]

Of course any belief my be incorrect. Godzilla may be real, but there is little to no evidence to support such a hypothesis, outside of a few cheesy Japanese horror flicks.

What do you mean Godzilla is not real!!!!! I saw a movie about Godzilla made in America.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-EEqJ9HyTk

I did to. Still a takeoff of those cheesy Japanese horror flicks.

[_The CCC]

http://thenaturalhistorian.com/2014/09/ ... ic-dating/[/quote]
How do we know how fast each specific plate has been moving for the last 6000 years? Nature is hardly consistent and while a scientist may accept averages, what we see now is no absolute measure for what transpired in the past. And incredible as it may seem, ALL things are possible with GOD.[/quote]

If you have to posit any God or Godlike force onto science to make it work, it is no longer science but religion.

[_Res Ipsa]

Why do you insist on misrepresenting my position?

I am not sure I did. You insist that you consider anomalies yet the orthodox position tosses them. What am I to do? Anomalies by definition do not fit the current theory accepted by orthodox science. Should I instead say you sweep them under a rug?

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tierr ... /tecto.htm

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation21.html

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 120606.htm

http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/bottomline.html

http://newpangaeatheory.com/the-enigmas/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_u ... geoscience

Now you've moved on from misrepresenting my position to misrepresenting the position taken by science. Want to try again?