You have NOT proved the need for immense periods of time, you have artificially invented the idea. And the Flood took ONE YEAR with a few years of aftereffects, not 6000 years.
Have you calculated the amount of heat stemming from "super-sonic" tectonic movements? I mean have you never looked at the picture of the Himalayas and thought that there is no frikkin way that has come to existence in just a couple of years?
We are talking about something that just cannot have happened - the amount of heat released would´ve boiled the oceans and killed everyone.
1) Ice age after the Flood kept things cool. Ice age also a product of whatever heat is generated in tectonic and volcanic events.
2) I never said tectonic events such as the raising of the Himalayas took only a few years. Sorry if I said something that could be interpreted that way. However I certainly don't think such events took millions of years, a few hundred would be more than enough.
3) There were no people in India for at least that long, and besides all they'd experience would be earthquakes.
Excuse me if I feel free to guess about such things, but that's what Science is doing too.
Honest guessing is quite alright. Science OTOH does not guess per se.
The amount of heat generated by very rapid tectonic movement cannot be countered by any ice age, especially since one cannot assume that the movement had quite suddenly groung to a halt. The plates move as they have for millions of years. It is rather silly to think that peeps in India had been able to carry on with their daily life when greater earthquakes that have ever been recorded would have happened in "their backyard".
You are persistent and hard-working but when your basis is so fatally flawed, it is nothing short of amazing how you just carry on. There is absolutely no way that the earth we see today was mere millenia old. There is recorded history for longer than that.
If in fact it's been slowing down to this rate over 4300 years you'd never know it but in that context your assertion that 30,000 times the current rate would be beyond possible is nothing but your own subjective incredulity.
Correct me if I´m wrong but wouldn´t plates having slowed down to current observable rate mean that 4300 years ago they´d have travelled even faster than that 30.000 times calculated by constant speed?
If I have travelled 300 kms in four hours and for the last 50 kms I´ve been averaging 25 km/h then would that not make it reasonable to assume that my speed for the first 250 kms had to have been at least 125 km/h?
Edited by saab93f, : I mistakenly replied to HBD instead of Faith. The quotation is of Faith´s post a bit earlier.
Re: STENO'S PRINCIPLES OF STRATIGRAPHY: ORIGINAL HORIZONTALITY, ETC
Why is it Faith that you have such hostility towards geology? The geologists are not out there to prove or disprove any deity but to enhance our understanding of the lithosphere.
To me you sound like a person who´d be willing to shout at the heart surgeons how bad a job they´re doing because you´d watched a couple of episodes of "Dr House" and were familiar with words lupus or auto-immune.