Hydroplates unchallenged young earth explains Tectonics shortcomings!

I am not a real geologist, but I occasionally play one on TV {grin}. I believe that the plates are "riding on" the mantle, which is essentially all solid but plastic. Perhaps Joe or Bill will correct one or both of us.

You are, I think, more correct than I am.(can I beg for some leeway in that the basic picture is not misleading)

No. I don't feel we need to beg here.

Hydroplate people seem to think they did most of their riding in a few days around the flood somewhere, and they ate kinda just settling in now, I think they believe that's what causes earthquakes?

quote:

---

Hydroplate people seem to think they did most of their riding in a few days around the flood somewhere, and they ate kinda just settling in now, I think they believe that's what causes earthquakes?

---

JM: But hydroplate people (of which there is only one) don't present a physically plausible mechanism for moving 100 kilometer thick plates around at km/hour.CheersJoe MeertPS: I am curious as to your level of education. How much college level physics, math and geology have you completed? It will help guide some of my answers to you on this topic.

Ned, If you can not find where Walt believes the plates are not moving, then were probably in agreement they are floating, you do realize they are finding fractured rock and water in the super deep wells over 7 miles into the mantle, likely the reason crustal plates are able to move (one plate above another, think tectonics believe rock is moving against rock, but this is not what were finding in the super deep wells, there finding fractured rock and water, etc...P.S. In the Russian kola super deep Well there studying how water fluids affect crustal movements, this is science in action, putting two and two together and coming to the conclusion that water fluids in the inner earth would affect crustal plate movements, etc...Geophysics University of Bonn

So Walt's sliding continents (I thought he said the water was 10 miles under) have no mechanism? I thought he said something about that 'theory' of gravity? Are we assuming the 100 km 'plate' from pt? Why would I believe you over Walt? Anyone can say they "should not be questioned cause 'everyone' knows I'm right, what are you ignorant (uneducated)because you don't also?

Just in case some here have not gone to the links, which seems to be possible, here is the graph for simple and whatever (and for lurkers alike): Now please tell me why there is such a nice correlation between the age and the distance from Kilauea. Why do the islands farthest from Kilauea show the most erosion? Also, look at the values on both axes, 5000 km movement in 70 million years. For this to work in the hydroplate theory, not only would the speeding plates have to create these islands all at once, but it would also have to create K:Ar ratios that are different on each island in a way that would cause them to date in increasing order from Kilauea on a very tight line.I hate to be repeating myself, but this graph plainly shows the evidence backing slow tectonic movement. I see know such graph supporting the hydroplate theory.

Thanks I'll try not to gloat.

Whatever,From the site that you linked to
(Geophysics University of Bonn)
It reads thus:"Scientific problem:Investigate the response of the water column in the superdeep drillhole Kola-SG3 (12.25 km deep, the deepest borehole in the world) and adjacent borehole(s) to earth tidal and (possibly tectonic) forces, to barometric loading, to mining activities in the surroundings, to the passage of seimic wave fields, to seasonal influences - all reflecting in-situ pore pressure changes in the formations that are open to the borehole. This gives evidence of the role of free and mobile pore fluids in the middle crust when considering transport processes, tectonic stress transfer, and related subjects."It seems that they are looking at the response of your "fountains of the deep" to tidal and possibly tectonic forces. They consider water movement a consequence of larger forces, such as tectonics. You seem to be saying that the water in the middle crust is causing movement, they are saying that the water responds to crust movement. Two different things.

You can't even read this can you? That was directed at JonF certainly not you.

Why does your dating methods and results, fit so wonderfully together'? There could be some forces at work that make it appear so. You don't know what. It is one of those things that you can put on a shelf, and, see if it stands the test of time. You know, for a long time mainstream science has assumed old age, and looked for it. No other explanation will do. Sometimes where their error lies, is in dates that are way too old. In this case, what caused the erosion? (water?) What else besides their "dating" makes it old? In strata layers they call things layed down in the same event millions of years old. Of course Prof Tweedly Dee agrees with Prof Tweedly Dum, and they use stata and fossils to agree with themselves. I wonder if you'll get any heavy hitters to straighten you out, when the moderators here are admittedly pro evolution, and seem to me (right or wrong) to be bullies. Reminds me of "Groundhog Day" Where this guy named Ned says "am I right or am I right or am I right"? Then goes on to try and sell his policy (evolution in this case).

I am not going to dive into Walt fantasies. They are yours to deal with. You are being asked to describe and defend thos positions.You are failing in that.

OK sorry for thinking it was kind of an apology for saying things like you wanted me kicked off etc. But I can tell you you are wrong in your post. I can read, even if I make a few mistakes!

To the contrary. The first proponents of a very old age for the Earth were people who had originally thought that the Earth was 6,000 years old, and had experienced a flood. It was people who essentially held a young-earth position that first proposed an extremely old age to the Earth.