Edge, in my first point I simply wanted to point out that the idea of accelerated decay and associated radiogenic heating is a priori a sensible idea (for us). Almost every model starts out as a hand waving execise. You must know this. So initially we put up with holes just as Darwinism did. But I am also aware of numerous quantitative studies by these guys as well so I'm satisfied that things are proceeding.
No one is trying to claim they have the ultimate answer yet! But they have a possible answer and I am satisfied currently. 5 years down the track I might not be. Many of the initial detractors that you guys point out I have already read the explanations of previously (too much heat etc). I agree we need to get specific but I'll need to get up to speed if we want to do that and I will with the qualification that I am a physicist not a geophysicist.
Do I expect mainstreamers to have all the answers? No, but then neither should you of us. In the first instance we should see which model explains the gross structure of the geological column better. I honestly believe it is the flood model and will post on this.
I'll also post my stuff on cycothems soon - all I'll be saying is that there seems to be overwhelming evidence that these were rapdily formed (including coal) and they represent 100s and 1000s of feet of the geological column. It begs the question whether much of the column was catastrophically generated, and perhaps in one event. Sure you guys can say that only that component was rapid but it still begs the question.
Accelerated decay and rapid drift? The two have only recently been linked anyway. It follows quite naturally that vast radioheating
might generate rapid reversals. I can't personally gaurentee that but lets keep an eye on the cals ans ims coming out. And let me have a look at what has been done too.
Do you really think that the mainstream solution to all of this is so good? See my thread on 'Mainstream continental drift'.
------------------
You are go for TLI
™ Version 4.2