I figured the distance between Europe and North America to be currently roughly 3000 miles, and for that distance to have been traveled in a rough 4500 years would mean moving at an average rate of 1000 miles in 1500 years, or 10 miles in 15 years or 3/4 mile in one year, or 3960 feet or 47,520 inches, or 11 feet per day. I put that number at the midpoint of the time between the Flood and today, or roughly around 100 BC or so. I figure that's the speed at which the continents would have been separating in 100 BC. Before that they were separating at a faster rate that increases back to the beginning, and since then at a slower rate that decreases to the present rate of 2-4 inches per year.
And this behavior has no explanation at all and on top of that, somehow, magically, if we take the current rates of movement and the measurements of the ages of the rocks formed during that movement we come up with just the distances traveled. Which has the marvelously simple explanation of them moving at that measured current rate for the time measured.
Yet, another astonishing coincidence that you can't explain.
As for how "Plates moving at 30,000 times their current measured speed is all but impossible.." I can only repeat what I said above. You are assuming the current rate has persisted for millions of years and you are making it a standard without any warrant.
But, as has been pointed out to you, this is not just an assumption. If you take the current rate and apply it to dated objects in geology it all works out just right. You ignored that so you can pretend that it is "just" and assumption.
So you have to explain why the dating and the speed are both wrong is just the right way that it all works.
I'm still curious as to what you mean by coincidence here.
CatSci thinks that you believe that there isn't any match just that subjective looking at it makes some geologists think that there is one. Is that it?
How can measurements made of age of rocks (independently of anything else to do with sea floor motions) be "subjectively" made to match with the positions of formations (like the Hawaiian islands) and the currently measured speed of the ocean floor?
Is the speed of the floor measurement wrong? Are the locations of the Hawaiian islands wrong? Did someone change the dates to make the match happen?
If any of these happened why haven't the "scientists" of the CRI exposed these errors by measuring correctly?
Since it seems crazy to think that any of those things could be wrong and come up with the match I have to assume you mean something else other than what cat sci says. You don't like others saying what you mean so perhaps you can explain in more detail.
As well as I can guess what Faith is imagining is that the whole layer of sand has to be dropped at once. So for the pieces from a lower layer to be part way up in it they have to be suspended there while the sand layer builds up around them. I guess this is part of problem that is raised when you don't think any time can pass while the sediment builds up gradually.
If you want to help Faith with this you are going to have to describe, in excruciating detail, how the archean gravel is eroded off a little at a time. Some rolls down onto sand already depostited and sits there while more tapetes is piled on top, them more gravel erodes down and so on. I am not willing to take the time to make if clear enough for her. I'll enjoy watching you try.