Accelerated decay is not directly relevant to the CPT and runaway subduction (and baumgardner's computer models of the process), ...
So, you are saying that Baumgardner does not rely upon accelerated decay? What then is the mechanism for CPT? Why did it start, and why did it stop? I am assuming that you still adhere to CPT as you always did before. It appears that your education has not yet taken effect on your core belief system.
... and the rate of tectonic motion is not a physical law.
Correct. There is no law regarding the rate of tectonic motion. However, there is also no evidence that it was ever significantly different in the past.
You need to open another thread if you want to support your assertions. Of course I have dealt with your type many times before and the likelyhood of you actually doing so is slim to none, and yet you will go on making those same unsupported assertions. I would like to see you prove me wrong here. But as people say on the board, "put up or shut up".
Chris, if you are going to espouse fringe theories, you need to accept the fact that you will continually run into people 'of our type'. On the other hand, if you come back with a boatload of evidence and can present it coherrently, you will find a willing, if still reluctant, audience. You need to face it, Baumgardner may be a fabulous modeler, but he has no clue about the field realities of geology. Perhaps you will be the one who puts a dose of reality into Baumgardner's model. However, I see little to be optimistic about in that regard: Baumgardner's ultimate defense is 'because God said so!'
** How did we get enough water to cover Mt. Everest and where did the water go? Either answer that or concede the point. It is as simple as that.
Chris: If you have been reading the thread and understand what has been discussed, you would not be asking me this question.. this problem does not exist with CPT.
Correct, as far as you go. However, in order to have the rates of spreading that you are talking about, in such a short period of time, there should be abundant, diagnostic evidence in the geological record. In fact, I would guess that the amount of heat released and the toxic gases would render the earth quite sterile. The stratigraphy of such a deposit would not resemble what we see as normal epeiric seas or pelagic sedimentation. The system would be much more volcanic in composition and in structure. You see, Chris, you have to look at all of the evidence at one time to make a coherrent theory as to the presence or absence of a flood. Just saying that high tectonic rates could do it is not sufficient to make CPT viable.
™ Version 4.2