The Flood = many coincidences

You didn't understand anything Minnemooseus told you, did you.No one was trying to tell you there's ocean crust older than a couple hundred million years. That you can't even understand the simple explanations provided to you says a lot. Generally, ocean crust cannot be older than the time it takes sea floor to travel from oceanic ridge to subduction zone. You seem completely ignorant about geological theories of how sea floor is formed and destroyed.You express great confidence that there is a great geological paradox while displaying a profound ignorance of geology. How can you detect a paradox in something you don't even understand? All I can say is that this is very entertaining.--Percy

Hello Architect-426 WIth due apologies to Frank Lloyd Wright eh? As in when Plate Tectonics changed the field of geology? The difference is that Plate Tectonics proved itself with evidence and predictions ... you know, the scientific process. For plate tectonics. It can even be measured! The one that was a "Gish-Gallop" pile of bare links?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : qs

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

it may just be my comic density, my cosmic destiny or is it coin operated dunces?

I don't know what the age of ocean basin rocks has to do with the reality or lack of reality of "the flood", but here's a tidbit for consideration. The following from Science, March, 23. 2007. The entire abstract:

quote:

---

A Vestige of Earth's Oldest Ophiolite
Harald Furnes, Maarten de Wit, Hubert Staudigel, Minik Rosing, Karlis Muehlenbachs

​

A sheeted-dike complex within the ~3.8-billion-year-old Isua supracrustal belt (ISB) in southwest Greenland provides the oldest evidence of oceanic crustal accretion by spreading. The geochemistry of the dikes and associated pillow lavas demonstrates an intraoceanic island arc and mid-ocean ridge-like setting, and their oxygen isotopes suggest a hydrothermal ocean-floor-type metamorphism. The pillows and dikes are associated with gabbroic and ultramafic rocks that together make up an ophiolitic association: the Paleoarchean Isua ophiolite complex. These sheeted dikes offer evidence for remnants of oceanic crust formed by sea-floor spreading of the earliest intact rocks on Earth.

---

SourceI'll try to get back to message 24, but that a lot a baloney to try to slice. I might get something posted tomorrow.Moose

Before you start slicing the baloney you might want to look at my reply in Message 30.--Percy

Hey Percy, no I do 'understand' the system....'clearly'. But keep in mind, this is a theory, and as a rule should only be discussed on theoretical terms. But somehow, it has cleverly 'moved' itself over into the factual category despite all of it's inherent problems. Probing deep into the past is very risky business.

quote:

---

No one was trying to tell you there's ocean crust older than a couple hundred million years.

---

Then I need to throw out ALL of my current Geology literature! Will you please buy me a 'current' book for Christmas?If there is ocean crust billions of years old, then it did not have time to 'move' as the model suggests. How do you intertwine that with the PT model?

quote:

---

You express great confidence that there is a great geological paradox while displaying a profound ignorance of geology. How can you detect a paradox in something you don't even understand? All I can say is that this is very entertaining.

---

Good! I like entertainment too. Here is some more for everyone...Let’s run through a little ”scientific’ scenario of the model to see how it ”plates out’:Let’s pick a spot in the mid-ocean ridge (MOR), oh say between N. America and Africa. The MOR gives ”birth’ to new ocean crust. Lets now give the MOR and new name; MOM, since it gives birth to ocean crust.OK, after years of hard labor MOM just gave birth to twins, they then slowly ”leave the nest’, one heads east and one heads west .
Their ”spreading’ rate is, lets pick the upper average of 4” per year (the fastest ones, pedal to the metal, are burning rubber at 160mm/yr or 6.2992”/yr) . are you clear?
After 200ma they make a journey of 12,626 miles, or roughly halfway across the globe and meet in central Australia .
“Hello sis, I have not seen you in a few years. What are you doing here?”
“I’m looking for the subduction bin mate, is it anywhere near?”
“You’ll have to head north of here, right around Sumatra. Now steer clear of those continents and all the volcanoes my dear.”
“I need to hurry because my time is running out, I need to speed up in order to get to that subsuction spout.”“That’s not how it works Arch! They pushed the continents apart! . . . . ”The fact remains: the ocean crust, or 70% of our planet, is 3.2 billion years younger than the continents. What is wrong with this picture?
“Oh NO!!! Could it really be? Radiometric dating is an utter foe . .now is see . .clearly . ..it does not work . .but let’s keep it between you and me . . ”As you can see, it’s all GeoFantasy. Edited by ARCHITECT-426, : left out a word..

Your TV may be out of adjustment, but there's nothing wrong with the picture over here. You're just leaving subduction out of your little scenario. Ask the folks in Aceh Province, Sumatra what subduction can do.

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

Since you're back, could you answer my question above concerning the date of the global flood?

Hey Razd, are you going to make me some brownies for Christmas?

quote:

---

WIth due apologies to Frank Lloyd Wright eh?

---

Many! But lets stick to geology for this forum. We can discuss Franky elsewhere.

quote:

---

For plate tectonics. It can even be measured!

---

Yes! Even with a micrometer! We use these to measure concrete crack movement in old buildings...just in case...we need to add a brace.I don't argue movement. Goodness, I'd certainly hope there is movement, but what I was hoping to see is MORE movement! Not a few MM here and there.Plate Tectonics is a giant misnomer. It literally means "plate builder". What builds? Movement of the plates. How fast? Ahh, well, lets change the subject...Rifting, faulting, shifting, absolutely. But usually when that takes place land is destroyed, not 'built'.Please make me the brownies with the big chocolate chunks. Thanks!

I have no idea. Biblical scholars even argue about this. I've seen dates as far back as 5000BC to around 2300BC. I'd say closer to the 3000-2300BC range makes more since.What concerns you with the exact date please?

Yup. Before he claims subduction is just made up, there's lots of evidence for subduction. I personally think seismic tomography is really cool. Here's a creoss-section image showint the subducting Tonga slab. I tmay not work unless you are signed in at Science Magazine: registration is free. From :

quote:

---

Figure 2. East-west vertical cross section of a P wave velocity image from 0- to 700-km depth along the line AB (1220-km length) in Fig. 3A. Red and blue colors denote slow and fast velocities, respectively. Solid triangles denote active volcanoes. CLSC denotes the location of the Central Lau Spreading Center and ELSC denotes the location of the Eastern Lau Spreading Center. Earthquakes within a 40-km width from the cross section are shown as white circles. The velocity perturbation scale is shown at the bottom

---

quote:

---

We used a tomography method (9) to determine the 3D P wave velocity structure in the Tonga-Fiji region (9, 10) (Figs. 2 and 3). To confirm that the major velocity features were adequately resolved by the inversion, we conducted checkerboard resolution tests (11) (Fig. 4). The checkerboard test with a grid spacing of 50 km indicates good resolution for the area in and around the subducting Tonga slab and along the main line of OBSs (Fig. 4, A and B). For the test with a grid spacing of 70 km, the resolution is good for all the areas discussed (Fig. 4, C and D). We also conducted a number of inversions and resolution tests by changing the grid spacing, the grid configuration, and the initial model (10). The results show that the velocity structure in the study area (Fig. 3) can be resolved with a resolution of 50 to 70 km. This resolution scale is better than the 100- to 200-km resolution obtained in previous studies (5).

---

I try to stay away from the TV...unless there is a good ballgame on.I have not left out 'subduction'. I'm not convinced that those big trenches are 'subduction' zones. Where are the ones in the Tyrrhenian Sea?
None there, more volcanic edifices on the sea floor, yet Visuvio and Etna are 'subduction' edifices. Same with the Cascades, and as you know the adjacent ocean there is a made up of a bunch of canyons and more volcanoes such as Axial Seamount. Where is the subduction bin? Yet geology literature say St Helens is a 'subduction' edifice. More examples of how disconnected the whole PT theory becomes.Those trenches are something else.Edited by ARCHITECT-426, : spelling

Yes, I see that, and have studied many others. But again that does not prove 'slab pull' as subduction requires. What we do know is that seismic activity takes place primarily in faults. This proves that there is an angled fault. Now take that angle and keep going until you get below the closest volcanic edifice (you can apply this at several subduction zones), it gets too deep, or the volcanic edifice is too far away horizontally! So now we should back up and ask "what made the crack". Go back and study nuclear ballistics, as the earth tends to blow up from time to time. Just perhaps large mega-blasts, or better yet a series of them, initially caused the cracks!Yes! These are called 'ring faults' and they occur around major volcanic calderas.OK, I'm having fun, but I need to run. I've got some Xmas shopping to do. Cheers everyone.Edited by ARCHITECT-426, : No reason given.Edited by ARCHITECT-426, : No reason given.

Thanks for the response.The reason I am concerned with the exact date is that it tells us where to look for evidence. One of the first things I learned in archaeology was "If you want 10,000 year old sites, look in 10,000 year old dirt."A date of about 4,500 years ago tells us we need to be looking in soils, not geological formations. That eliminates the Cambrian "explosion" and all the rest of the geological materials from consideration. (This also eliminates plate tectonics.)What we need to do is examine soils of the approximate 4,500 year old time period. And that is exactly what archaeologists in the US and elsewhere in the world do all the time. I've been doing just that for nearly 40 years. And I've not found any evidence of a flood in the areas I've worked (not counting the Channeled Scablands of southern and eastern Washington, which show evidence of a significantly older and much smaller flood).Now that we've come this far, pinning down an approximate date, can you show evidence within this time period that may be attributed to the global flood?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Vesuvius is the result of continent-continent collision between African and Eurasian plates. The African plate is subducted beneath the Eurasian plate and formed the volcanoes on the western shores of Italy and also east through Greece and Turkey. Cascadia Subduction Zone.