Hydroplates unchallenged young earth explains Tectonics shortcomings!

The same methods are used to measure movement all over the world. Are you actually suggesting that all these results are wrong? Is Walt actually saying that they aren't moving now?Why are you asking for more? What is it you want to see?If it is demonstrated that the pacific plate is moving then what?By the way it is not the islands that are moving relative to the plate. It is the whole seafloor moving relative to the plume and, I presume, the axis of rotation of the earth (you need some kind of reference when the whole thing is like the surface of a boiling pot of soup (without the pot).Again let me ask: Why are you so hung up on this? If it is shown that the plates are moving then what?How much work will you go to understand the data and the details. If you really want to check the method out you're going to have to read a text book on the process and the math. Is that what you want?This smacks of a stalling tactic to me and I don't see wasting effort until you explain both what you want and why?but just to help you here is one place that discusses it a bit and talks about other methods
http://www.agu.org/...node3.html#SECTION00021000000000000000[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-06-2004]

Hi, All!I just posted this same message over at the Fossil sorting for simple thread. I repeat it here.Now that it's morning, I want to reiterate my comments from last night, plus I want to add a little more.To the evolutionists: Moose has mentioned many times the downside of piling on. This thread is a nearly perfect illustration of the problems inherent when that happens. Discussion became fragmented because many people made the same point, but each in their own way, and the original points often became lost as posts became shorter and shorter. I just traced Mark's post back to see what the original point was and had to go back at least six messages before discovering it concerned cladistic correlations. This is no way to conduct a debate.Some of the best points were made early on but were never comprehended, and now they've become lost. I think a return to the early simple points is a good idea. Evolutionists should procede gently but persistently with these points until they are understood.To the Creationists, mostly Simple: I appreciate that you acknowledged and understood my points about the way discussion takes place here at EvC Forum. This thread resides in one of the science forums, and so discussion here should seriously address the topic. It helps a lot if you understand a post before replying to it. Understanding a point is not the same as agreeing with it. In fact, it is essential to understand a point if you're to successfully rebut it. As you read above, I'm encouraging evolutionists to persist with a particular point until you give an indication of understanding it, and only then move on to the next point.It may seem to you that I'm singling you out for special criticism, since I'm criticizing you for not understanding the posts you're replying to while I'm not doing that to the evolutionists, and you may therefore perhaps conclude that I am biased. I *am* an evolutionist, and I *do* believe in God. Please trust that I am simply going by what I see, and that's that the evolutionists are piling on, and that you haven't comprehended most of what you've read, plus you don't have the necessary background in which to assess the information anyway. It's like you need hooks on which to hang all the hats, but since you haven't built the house yet you have no walls to which to nail the hooks, and so you're left with a mass of unorganized hats sitting useless on the ground. It takes time to build the house and hang the hooks and organize the hats. It takes time to learn, and I'm urging you to slow down.Please understand that just because you don't understand the positions of the evolutionists doesn't mean that they are right and you are wrong. It just means that the replies you're currently offering don't offer too many signs of you having understood what you're replying to, and so most of the discussion to this point has been of you and the evolutionists talking past each other. It's this situation that I'd like to bring to an end.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

Ned, You said GPS would prove that Hawaii, is moving, that Walt agrees with you, that they are moving, JM agrees with you that the Pacific Plates are moving, but you have not proved that the Hawaii is moving in the same direction as JM suggests, by GPS, or proven Walt agrees with your movement. You said its a fact, now all I'm asking for is proof, etc...P.S. The question is are the seamounts rooted or not, Hawaii is a seamount that surfaced, if the Pacific plates are moving and the seamounts are rooted, their foundations would of been scraped off by the tectonic plates, breaking up these mountains, if the GPS shows they are moving(not rooted), it should confirm the tectonic plate theory that the pacific plates are moving in same direction, as Hawaii GPS movement, etc...

You are a bit muddled on the scraping off. The plate is riding on rock that gets more and more molten as you descend. It is the molten rock under the plates that is moving them. There isn't anything hard down there to scrape anything off. So Hawaii is "rooted" in the plate but the whole plate, Hawaii and it's extension down under it are all moving together.Is that clearer now?I have asked for what you need as proof of the plates moving. Could you give me some idea of what you need? Did you read the sites I referenced? How much work are you willing to do?

whatever wrote"Ned, You said GPS would prove that Hawaii, is
moving, that Walt agrees with you, that they
are moving, JM agrees with you that the
Pacific Plates are moving, but you have
not proved that the Hawaii is moving in
the same direction as JM suggests, by
GPS, or proven Walt agrees with your
movement. You said its a fact, now all
I'm asking for is proof, etc..."Although this isn't the Hawaiian Islands, the science article in the February 2004, "GSA Today" discusses in detail what has been learned about the movement of tectonic plates within Southeast Asia using GPS technology. This research verifies ongoing plate tectonics, just as well as the Hawaiian Islands. The article is:Burchfiel, B. C., 2004, 2003 Presidential
Address: New Technology; New Geological
Challenges.GSA Today. vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 4-9.Until the end of February, the article can be downloaded at the Burchfiel (2004) GSA Today Web page . This web page has links for a PDF file and html version of this paper. Since the free, non-subscription download expires at the end of February, people should go ahead and download the paper if they want a copy.Yours,Bill Birkeland

Ned, I thought even Walt believed the plates were floating, but that doesn't mean Hawaii is necessarily moving, the tectonic plate theory by your own words would be moving Hawaii, do you have GPS proof the Hawaian Islands are moving in the same direction as the tectonic plate theory dictates, etc...

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]

Ned, If you can not confirm the Hawaiian Islands are moving in the same direction as the tectonic plates imply(not just shifting, etc...), GPS has been around for a long time, you should be able to confirm in what direction the islands are drifting, if they are drifting at all, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 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.

Ned, You need to prove the Hawaiian Islands are still moving, your tectonic theory believes these plates are still moving, if you can not prove this, then Walts theory makes more sense, the plates are only floating, etc...

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]

Piece o' cake. Plate motions are being measured regularly by several means.This is from Geodetic VLBI, measured by Very Long Baseline Interferometry from satellites:

(Click for full size image)The raw data and detailed explanations and lots more maps are available at the above-referenced URL.{AdminAsgara fixed the width but made the figure difficult to read. For a more readable version see http://lupus.gsfc.nasa.gov/plots/maps/jpg/Pacific.jpg. The length and direction of the purple lines indicate the differences between the measured motion and the motion that would be seen if the plate was moving as a rigid body. The purple lines are much shorter than the lines that indicate the overall direction and amount of motion, proving that the plate is moving almost like a rigid body (and deforming a little) and carrying the Hawaiian Islands along with it.}And, from UNAVCO Brochure Online with Figures Available, GPS measurements: Figure 1 - Motions of GPS sites in ITRF-94 reference frame, after (3). Note Hawaiian site motion along the island chain, as expected because these GPS motions essentially correspond to present day absolute plate motions in a fixed hotspot reference frame (2).[This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 02-06-2004][This message has been edited by JonF, 02-06-2004] [Fix width of jpeg. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 02-06-2004]What's the record for the most edits? My latest one is to restoer what Admin over-wrote.[This message has been edited by JonF, 02-06-2004]

whatever wrote:"your tectonic theory believes these plates are still moving"If Mr. Whatever would look at the data presented in the article that I referenced in my message 80, he and any lurker would find that it proves proof that plates do move. The article that I noted is:Burchfiel, B. C., 2004, 2003 Presidential
Address: New Technology; New Geological
Challenges.GSA Today. vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 4-9.Until the end of February, the article can be downloaded at the Burchfiel (2004) GSA Today Web page. This web page has links for a PDF file and html version of this paper.There are also other figures showing plate movements documented by high precision Global Positioning System (GPS) surveying technology. Some are:1. "UNAVCO Brochure Online" at:
Page not found – UNAVCO2. " GPS Site Motion Vector/Crustal Velocity Archive" at:
UNAVCO2A. "Composite GPS Velocity Map"
UNAVCO2B. "plate velocities (yellow vectors) compared with GPS velocities (purple)"
UNAVCOThe above data alone, specifically the excellent agreement between motions predicted by plate tectonic models, clearly demonstrates that Walt Brown is simply wrong about the plates simply floating nad not moving. It really doesn't matter if specific GPS data exists for Hawaii or not. There is more than enough high precision GPS, in addition to an abundance geologic data, to refute the notion that the plates are passive floating.How does Walt Brown explain the data illustrated in the Composite GPS Velocity Map and plate velocities with GPS velocities. How does Walt brown explain data as shown in similar maps, such as REVEL-2000 published by Sella et val. (2000) at:UNAVCOand for the "Taiwan-Luzon region" at:UNAVCOThis is from:Sella, G. F., T. H. Dixon, and A. Mao,
REVEL, 2002, A model for recent plate
velocities from space geodesy, Geophysical
Research Letters. 107, 10.1029 2000JB000033.Yours,Bill BirkelandAn interesting web page is the "Jules Verne Voyager: Earth" at:Earth — Jules Verne Voyager | UNAVCO[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 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?

That link leads to a GSA Field Guide. I think the correct link is GSA Today: Volume 14, Number 2, February 2004.