6
edits
Changes
no edit summary
:::::::::::::Far less challenging of an obstacle than creation itself. Are you seriously proposing that a discontinuity occurred ''after'' creation? That seems implausible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:31, 26 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Far less challenging of an obstacle than creation itself. Are you seriously proposing that a discontinuity occurred ''after'' creation? That seems implausible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:31, 26 June 2009 (EDT)
Unindent. In response to Mr. Schlafly. My link to the perpetual motion superfuild fountain is valid and testable. As helium approaches absolute zero heat(around 2 Kelvin), it gains zero viscosity and zero entropy. Thus the demonstrated perpetual motion is verifiable. Granted it exists in perpetual motion only when viewed from inside the system as to create conditions for a superfuild to exist on earth does take energy, it does not nullify the odd characteristics of superfuild and condensate like materials. Now this does not have much to do with plate tectonics but I figured it deserved to be cleared up.
Back on the tectonic front, assuming the Mr. Schlafly is correct in a non standard rate of radioactive decay any case for a dynamic speed of tectonic movement must explain magnetic stripping. Where under sea fault lines deposit periodic amount of magma as the plates spread outward. If we are to argue that the rate of movement has varied, magnetic stripping should show longer deposits around 6,000 years ago corresponding to greater movements of the past. As this is not the case, a young earth argument might want to assume that the current tectonic state was present at the moment of creation and thus has moved constantly. Otherwise, another verifiable explanation of magnetic stripping is needed. Thoughts?