Hydroplates unchallenged young earth explains Tectonics shortcomings!

Again, what do you want as proof?Here is a site discussing the movement
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/ASK/hawaiian_hotspot2.html(btw I did find a site that has a paper suggesting that the hotspot itself has moved in the 81 to 47 million year bp time frame) This apparently suggests that the pacific plate has maintained a more constant direction than thought.)[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-06-2004]This one shows the correlation between age and distance (a speed of 8.3 cm per year).
Hawaii Center for Volcanology | Formation of the Hawaiian Islands[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-06-2004]

The post 82 tells you about the motion and shows the motion marked out by the hotspot. It aligns (after 40 Myr bp) with the current direction and speed of the plate.

And what do you need for proof? Isn't the fact that the US geological survey thinks they are enough?By the way have you checked on what Walt says? They are floating according to plate tectonics too so maybe everyone is agreement on that. Or has Walt done some measurements of his own to show that they are stationary now? Has Walt actually done measurements?added by edithere is more detail from nasa
http://bowie.gsfc.nasa.gov/926/slrtecto.htmlwith the pacific in particular
http://bowie.gsfc.nasa.gov/926/swpactect.htmlas you can see from the last the motion fits with the island chain until the emperor seamontsadded by further edit
Thanks JonF. Your references are much better than mine.
[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-06-2004][This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-06-2004][This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-06-2004]

You see, whatever, you have to be careful what you ask for.I didn't think you really wanted to read as much as Bill has supplied but if you keep asking for 'proof' you really are asking for it. You didn't actually think I would (or anyone else ) make up this stuff did you? There are some relatively uncontroversial facts that you might be best to just take as a given at least provisionally.Then, later, if you think you don't like the outcome of the discussion you may go back and challenge even some of the simpler pieces of evidence.If you keep playing games with asking for details of every single thing then you will get inundated with much more than you really want to read.Now since you've been given lots of detail perhaps you can return the favour and give a something like the same level of detail about Walts ideas. You will find that there are a number of people here actually willing to read specific things if you bring them up. You should note that you have been pointed to specific information -- Walt's book does not constitute specific information. Someone asked somewhere for a particular chapter in the online information.In addtion, the title here says something about tectonics shortcomings. I seem to have missed the clear deliniation of one or two of those shortcomings.Meanwhile, now that we have the Hawaii thing settled perhaps you can use Walt's 'theory' to explain the ages and locations of the Hawaiian islands?

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

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

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.

I am still waiting for your experts:

And God wrote into the rocks. They tell us what happened. Your interpretation of scripture is attempting to make God out a liar.

Did you read the material in the link? Do you need it spelled out for you in short words?

But MF, staying on a topic makes it easier for new people to find things they might like to read. It also makes it possible to keep track of what one is talking about so you don't confuse yourself.It allows for others to step into a discussion with at least some chance of understanding what is being discussed.It isn't really any kind of onerous restriction it just makes all the discussions work better. I don't know why anyone would want to have one giant topic with all sorts of different discussions going on past each other. That is where you get to without some topic discipline.