The Flood = many coincidences

If you maintain that your gibberish can fool a three-year-old child, but not someone who has a PhD in geology, then I entirely concur.If you ever figure out why this should be the case, this will be your first step on the road to recovery.

Are you familiar with the phrase "word salad"?

Your complete ignorance of geology does indeed give you the "freedom" to write about geology absolutely unconstrained by knowing anything about geology. This is not, however, an advantage. It's a handicap. I see that you are also enjoying the extraordinary liberation that comes from being pig-ignorant about architecture. And, indeed, architects, or you would not ascribe your extraordinary delusions to any of them, let alone all of them.

The movement of the continents can be measured directly by GPS. The movement of the continents can be measured directly by satellite laser ranging. The movement of the continents can be measured directly by Very Long Baseline Interferometry. The energy to power drift is produced by convection currents in the mantle --- ultimately by the fact that the Earth is hotter at greater depths. Do you deny the existence of this thermal energy? What about it? What are you talking about? No-one ever said it did. Period. There is not "evidence of massive volcanism everywhere"; and if there was, it would not prevent plate tectonics from also causing geological features. Direct measurements of the direction of motion at the transform faults along the ridges show that that's exactly what they are. Assertion is not argument. That depends on the temperature and the confining pressure.Here, for example, is what happens to marble cylinders under compression under different confining pressures. Note that brittle fracture is seen only at the lowest confining pressure: at higher confining pressures their behavior is plastic and ductile. But again this is based on direct observation, and so you may find it less convincing than stuff that you've made up in your head.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

First of all I would point out that the Earth is not in fact planar.Second, I should like to see your evidence. So far as I can see, you're claiming that if a sheet of rock is subjected to compression, it will form what looks like a mountain range (presumably, in a small sheet of rock, a really teensy-tiny mountain range) with what looks like a deep rift running down the middle, and that this mountain range will be displaced perpendicular to its axis along what look like transform faults (will they also behave like transform faults?)So, have you got any evidence for this? Like someone doing it and getting those results? Please show me where this has been done, bearing in mind that things that only happen in your head aren't really real.Oh, and what is the origin of this compressive force, please?Oh, and how do you get round the fact that rocks will behave elastically at depth, as shown in the rightmost cylinder in the photograph I showed you? I've since checked the figures, and that's what happens at a mere 1.75 km down. Do you know how deep the mid-ocean rifts are? First, what evidence?Second, if that was how science worked, then plate tectonics would never have got started in the first place. The consensus agreement was that there was no such thing as continental drift. Then when the evidence for it was produced, geologists admitted that they were wrong. And this did not, as it happened, call into question "the credibility of nearly the entire scientific community". You know how I explained to you that assertion isn't argument?Well that hasn't changed since your last post. Note for innocent bystanders. Maybe I should explain the deal with transform faults.Consider the diagrams below. At the top we see a diagram of a lateral fault with a feature running across it (it's meant to be a road).The lateral fault illustrated is called a left lateral fault. You can see that standing on either side of the fault and looking across it, the road appears displaced to the left. And if you stood on one side of the fault during an earthquake and looked across the fault, you would see the land on the other side of the fault moving to the left relative to you. But when the idea of sea-floor spreading was proposed, it was realised that the transform faults would behave differently if they really were spreading centers. When the mid-ocean rift was displaced to the left, then someone looking across the fault during an earthquake would see the sea-floor on the other side moving to the right --- as turned out to be the case. The success of this startling testable prediction did a lot to swing geologists towards the plate tectonics model.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Uplift can be observed and measured. Every Earth scientist knows the answer. I'd ask you for evidence, but obviously that well is dry.And I'd ask you for a model, only you're a creationist.

How do you explain why they failed to reject it back in the 1960s when they'd been brought up to reject it? When it had been "engrained into them" that continental drift was for cranks? When their "ideology" was that there was no such thing?Those of us who live in the real world know why. It's because they kept getting slapped in the face with the evidence until they woke up. Note the word "most".Note also that "A => B" and "B => A" are two different propositions. I think that you're trying to say that you don't know why trenches exist; to which you're apparently adding a foolish pretense that accretionary prisms don't exist.But the obscurity of your style makes it hard to be sure what it is you're trying to be wrong about. Yeah. Where, oh where is that East Pacific Rise? It's a big puzzle. To blind people. You know that thing I explained to you about assertion not being argument?

Wrong. I explained this to you. They predicted that left displacement of the ridge should correspond to relative motion to the right along transform faults and vice versa; and they were right. If lava comes out of a linear fissure, obviously it's going to spread roughly at right angles to the direction of the fissure except at the ends. How else would it behave? So not by looking at the actual sea floor, then? I'm still waiting for some evidence. You claim that compression will reproduce the ridge, the rift, and the transform faults. If this is true and known to be true, then someone has done the experiment and published it somewhere. Where? Again, if it is observable, then some evidence would be nice.And even if by some wild coincidence you happened to be telling the truth, the ability of compression to mimic one aspect of seafloor spreading would not alone make it a suitable replacement. Can your compression also mimic the radiometric measurements, the magnetic anomalies, the layer-cake effect?But before we get on to that, perhaps first you could show us evidence that it can do the one thing you do claim it can do.Or perhaps you can't. I'm not holding my breath. The arrows may be pointing in the wrong direction according to your hypothesis, but they are pointing in the right direction according to geologists who have gone and looked. You might want to look up the words "scaling laws". In this particular case is fairly obvious that you can't get the same results with a tabletop model, because it will not reproduce the change from brittle elastic to plastic ductile behavior of rocks at depth. You know how I explained to you the difference between assertion and argument?

No you wouldn't.Are you nuts?How would a global flood produce these "layers upon layers"? We know what floods do. One thin layer of mud is all you'd get. Which many of them demonstrably aren't. Which is so contrary to observation that your remarks are going to make me giggle intermittently for the next few hours until I fall asleep.---Really, if you know nothing at all about geology, which you obviously don't, why do you expose yourself to ridicule by prating in public about geology?

My emphasis.Your admission.Your call.Oh, and would you show us all the evidence that the eruption of Mt. St. Helens caused a flood? Only we must all have missed it.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Because the way that non-flood water cuts through volcanic ash looks strikingly similar to the way that non-flood water cuts through sedimentary rocks?And your point would be ... ?

In case you are confused, perhaps I should explain that a volcano is not a flood.If you wish to propose an actual physical model for the behavior of "the fountains of the deep", you will be the first person ever to do so. So ... downstream of the mudflow ... caused by a volcano and not a flood ... there was mud?Yeah, I'd have guessed that.Did this produce, in the geological record, any more than the thin layer of mud that I mentioned? (PS: the word NO is spelt N ... O.)For some reason, probably because the eruption of Mt. St. Helens took place in the real world, and was not a magical impossible flood, it did not produce the magical impossible deposition that you poor suckers fantasize bout.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

2 cm/year is about as unridiculous as it comes in terms of producing effects of the magnitude of 2 cm/year. You know, as in the theory of plate tectonics. You are correct in guessing that practically the entire scientific community disagrees with you.Perhaps you should have a little think about why that is the case. I notice that you have omitted any actual reasoning here. That's why they (a) make multiple measurements (b) use two other methods besides GPS (c) make their measurements over a number of years (d) do not make their measurements from points where mountains or buildings are in the way or where there is a source of static interference.Perhaps this would be a good time to point out that scientists are not idiots. Unlike some people I could mention.---I notice that you have a belt-and-braces approach to denial. Wouldn't it be enough either to deny that movement of 2 cm/year has any effect, or to deny that it occurs? Why make a fool of yourself twice?

I did not claim that it was. I merely pointed out that lava does not spread radially from a linear fissure.As the rest of your post seems devoted to vacuous rhetoric, I shall pass over it in silence.

Did you nod off when they told you about the Coconino Sandstone and the Hermit Shale? Now do it again with deposits that are terrestrial. Heck, do it with deposits that are glacial. Uh, no. There's evidence showing that at various times bits of the world were wet, something that no-one disputes.If there was evidence showing that "the world was flooded", geologists would have noticed, especially as that's what they started off looking for. No, and the desert fossils found in temperate places around the world didn't take the train.Environments change.