Talk:Plate tectonics

Could someone remove the last sentence of the first paragraph? Although technically not wrong, this sentence implies that the movement of plates can be doubted since GPS-measurements did not record those movements. Its the current limitation on the accuracy of GPS (at best 30 cm), however, that does not permit the recording of plate tectonics. --nooijer

It has been a while since I posted the previous comment: if no-one minds, I'll delete this sentence. --nooijer 23:30, 22 November (JST)


 * Only Creationists are permitted to edit articles. --Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2007 (EST)

Well, I know. But in this case the article is just wrong: I don't see why one should be a creationist to appreciate this. Again, this is misleading: why inform people with mistakes? --nooijer 22:10, 23 November (JST)

What mistake? It is factual inaccurate, is it not? You have shown nothing pointing to the other wise. The fastest plate movement I am aware of is 18.3 cm a year, so if you graph it over the YEARS (for example a decade), there should be a clear difference. This would be a mystery for everyone. Not just secular geologists.

You are using double speak.

"Although technically not wrong"

"the article is just wrong"

make up your mind.

Thirdly, I haven't replied to you on the hydroplate article because I don't have the time to debate, but I will reply to you soon.--Nlawrence 12:02, 23 November 2007 (EST)

Let me clarify. It is very difficult to measure plates moving that move with average speed. Therefore the suggestion in the article is wrong. I did, however, found something on measuring the speed of plate movement: http://cddis.nasa.gov/926/slrtecto.html Shouldn't these techniques be included in the article (especially if you insist on keeping the GPS statement)? --nooijer 14:20, 24 November (JST)


 * NASA has a pretty extensive GPS study on plate tectonics at this link. -- Creationmac 13:50, 9 April 2008 (PDT)