"JM: Well, let me help you out. The driving forces of the plates don't act alone. They work in harmony. As near as we can tell, the breakup of Pangea started with a huge mantle upwelling and that started the continents breaking apart. There are flood basalt provinces that make up sort of an ancient 'ring of fire' along the present-day Atlantic margins. This is probably the initial cause of Atlantic opening."
--This is what I have read, and it sounds feasible enough for me.
"Here's the problem as I see it. Creationists want to pick and choose the geology that they are willing to believe. For example, if you are going to accept this hypothesis for the initial splitting of the Atlantic, then you must accept the evidence for the synchroneity of the volcanism. In order to do that, you must accept the radiometric ages that attest to the synchroneity and/or the sequence of fossils that help provide a time line for the spreading. So, do you accept this geological conclusion?"
--I agree partly, at first, you asserted that we must accept the sequential deposition of volcanic deposits, I can agree with that. But then you take a down-drop and say that in order to do such a thing, you must accept radiometric dating to 'help provide a time line for the spreading'. This is a problem because you asserted that I must agree with the time-scale on deposition if I am to agree on the order and synchrony of this order. To illustrate this:
This is my time-scale:
-------------------
1--2--3--4--5--6--7
And this is your time-scale:
-------------------------------------
1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7
--You see, I can agree with the order at which events arose or a sertain form of sediment deposit was deposited, just as you can. Though I need not to agree on the time scale that you input into when these events took place. A shorter usually takes somthing such as your time and compresses it by intensifying or itterating it catastrophicly or something of that nature. I need not to accept this on radiometric dating, the mechenism of burrial may explain why we see relatively smaller quantities of radio nuclei, though I would have to research radiometric dating to come to the conclusion.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-16-2002]