Geomagnetism and the rate of Sea-floor Spreading

What I'd like to know is where the timeline on the graph TC keeps posting comes form and how it was derived.Was it simply based on assuming a constant rate of spreading and calculating from that ? Because if not, TC has a lot more explaining to do.

Percy, what I want to know is where the ages on the bottom line of the graph come from - how they are calculated. It does make a difference to the interpreation of the graph.

You're not answering the question. How were the dates worked out ?
You need dates for the magnetic reversals to produce that graph. So where did those dates come from ?And if the dates AREN'T based on assuming a constant rate of spreading, then explaining the data is not so simple as assuming an increased rate of spreading. The dates need to be explained as well.

As I understand it, TC is saying that instead of interpreting the data as showing variations in the rate at which geomagnetic reversals occur it should be interpreted as variations in spreading rate.This only works if the timeline on the graph is derived from the measured widths using an assumed spreading rate. Even if the spreading rate is assumed to vary there is a complication. Unless TC managed to totally misunderstand my question (and I have no idea how he can have construed it to give the answer he did) it is clear that in fact the dating information comes from some other source he declines to mention, and therefore his argument - in its current state - fails to address the data he is using.The other half of his argument is an argument from personal incredulity against the conventional view. It can't carry any weight of the evidence really does support conventional plate tectonics as seems to be the case.

Do you intend to explain where the timeline on your graph came from ?I ask because if you dodge a simple question about your own data - as it appears you have - then it is clear that there is no point asking questions of you at all.

Well we are beginnign to get close to an answer. What is this data ? Radiometric dates ? Or something else - if so, what ?Since this is a detail crucial to your hypothesis surely you took it into account. Is there a reason you are reluctant to talk about it ?

It's not the delays between posts that make me think that you are reluctant to talk about the subject - but the number of times I've had to ask to get one little piece of information that you had to know. You've posted responses - just not answers. So it does not seem to me that you were too busy.Anyway, we've now established that accelerated radioactive decay was not a digression after all - it was an integral part of your hypothesis

So essentially you are saying that you are unable to deduce that I want an answer to a questionfrom the fact that I have repeatedly asked it.Also you are glad that I now realise that you tried to avoid discussion of an important part of your hypothesis by falsely labelling it as a "divergence" from the topic. That's interesting - most creationists get upset when they are caught.

I find both parts of your answer to be less than the full truth.To actually explain WHY your responses did not answer the question you would need to explain WHY you were unable to provide an answer repeatedly. Since you should have known or had the information to hand (because it was a key part of your hypothesis) and since actually writing the answer would not have taken longet than writing the responses you DID provide I see no reason to believe that. Indeed I should not even have had to ask. It should have been explicitly stated in your original article
So your response only makes sense if I assume that you did not know the answer and were not able to look it up. Even then you could have admitted that fact and looked it up between responses - which you did not do.Your second statement is definitely false. The first mention of acceerated decay is in post 7 where you preemptively try to shut down discussion. And insisting that you should not have to justify an assumption of accelerated decay is bad enough - but when you are in effect using radioactive decay rate as a substitute for the spreading rate you in fact need to justify that, too. We're back to your assumption that the spreading rate is closely proportional to the decay rate which you have shown a reluctance to admit to in another thread (here http://EvC Forum: S.America and Africa's rate of spreading -->EvC Forum: S.America and Africa's rate of spreading - the first two of your posts on the issue - 8 and 10 - refuse to admit to the problem).

Well to see just how dubiouys your excuses are, here is the list of posts where I asked for the information, starting on page 3 of this thread. 41 (clarified in 43).
Response given in post 46 - but no answer.
Repeated in post 49 - no response
Further discussion in post 52
Asked again in post 55 response in post 56, but no answer given until a later edit
Asked again in post 63 and THEN an answer.So I raised the issue no fewer than 6 times (counting 43 with 41) and only on the 6th did I get a simple answer.[Edit] I would add that it SHOULD be mentioned in your article, not primarily because CPT requires accelerated radioactive decay (although that is a strong reason) but because of the ADDITIONAL assumption implicit in your argument. CPT does not entail that the rate of radioactive decay should be a substitute for spreading rate - but that is how you used it and THAT needs to be explained. And THAT is why you NEEDED to explain that you were using radiometric dates.Still given the discussion on the other thread it seems that explaining radiometric dates in general and in relation to the sea floor spreading data requires God to use highly specific miracles that just happen to produce the results we would expect if CPT were false and mainstream geology were correct.To say that rejecting CPT requires a "uniformitarian presupposition" n the light of this is transparently untrue. Anyone taking a scientific view must reject CPT on that basis.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 09-25-2003]