Replies

==If you are so certain that your views are the only truth surely you can get me banned as a heretic for doubting the nonsense you spew.

LOL...and here I thought you were one of the few long-age evos capable of carrying on a good natured difference of opinion. I find that the one area that I am wrong more than any other is when I give evos (who appear friendly at first, but are seething Temple of Darwin fanatics just below the surface) the benefit of the doubt.

==Nonsense. The plutons may form relatively quickly but the magma will not cool that quickly.

Ah, but you digress. Or should I say that you are changing the subject? Or should I say you are deflecting attention away from the ignorance and outdated assumptions displayed in your first statement/question? This was your opening salvo, remember?:

"How did the granite get to the top of the mountain range in the first place under a young earth format, granite is intrusive igneous rock, meaning it came in beneath other rocks in the crust initially. It must have taken a day or two to get up at the high elevations."

Then I pointed out to you that modern science has determined that the very same granite that the long-agers assumed (without evidence) took millions of years to form, can in fact melt, segregate, ascend and emplace within a “geologically extremely rapid—perhaps even catastrophic” timeframe, well within the traditional biblical chronology.

But now you want to pretend that knew all along that granite could form quickly--even catastrophically--and now you wish to change the subject to cooling. Ok, I'll bite. Why don't you put up the best argument you can muster for the long-age cooling of granite, and I'll give the creation science argument for rapid cooling, and we'll see which one is favored by the available evidence, shall we?

==We can only assume that the rate of erosion is the same now as it was 6,000 or 100 million years back. Limestone was perched on top of this intrusive pluton suggesting that it was undersea at the time it formed.

Another typical evo/long-ager mistake. Surely you must know by now that Lyellian gradualism is being rapidly replaced by catastrophism by all sides of the origins debate (to include granite formation)?

Finally, I was really looking forward to a cordial discussion/debate with you, but my hopes were dimmed by your concluding remarks. Perhaps we can both let bygones be bygones and agree to conduct ourselves like gentelmen for the rest of the discussion? Just a thought--GGG

Your idea of quickly and mine are vastly different. The time frame of 30,000 years quoted in the article which I only skimmed was well outside of the 6000 year time frame for young earth. Temperature is critical as the formation of various rocks depends on their crystal structure which is different in basalts and granites. Both are composed of silica and oxygen though basalt has less than granite. However, the rapid cooling in basalts under the sea or in continental floods differs from gabbro which underlies basalt in the seabed and the difference is largely due to pressure and temperature.

Mountain formation can be geologically quick but some of the youngest mountains, the Himalayas still began their formation 70 to 50 million year ago depending on whether you start counting at the collision of the two plates or the beginning of the uplift.

The earth is good at recycling rocks as the plates move but there are still large Precambrian shields of ancient rock in Canada, Africa and Antarctica. Dating rocks can be done by layering, fossils, radiometric dating and reading the changes in magnetic inclination. The magnetic poles have switched ever few hundred thousand years.

Now one thing that angers me is using the club of authority to validate beliefs. You are welcome to your beliefs as long as they are not passed of as science validated. I have religious beliefs and they can in no way be validated in a test tube. I will leave the beheading of nonbelievers to the Muslims.