Can Gravitational Bodies Grow?

No. It is thought that most planetary accretion occurred in the early stages of the formation of our solar system. Essentially, the Sun and Jupiter swept up much of the remaining material, so accretion rates are virtually negligible now.

Why does nobody else believe this (except you, of course)?

Plate tectonics.

Look it up.

 

Another fallacy/falsehood.
Nothing I have said contradicts that map.
Carbon dating is irrelevant.

One could ask you.

Do you or do you not accept radiometric dating that dates sea floor sequences that have since been incorporated into continental sequences as being greater than 200 Ma?

 

Once again you demonstrate a complete lack of comprehension of basic numeracy skills in relation to orders of magnitude.

 

Oh get stuffed you dishonest hack.
We've already been through this. A question can be both a falsehood and a fallacy, especially when it is so clearly intended to be misleading.

And I answered your question - carbon dating is irrelevant to ocean floor spreading, or dates as old as 200 Ma.

Carbon dating can not be reliably used to date materials more than 60,000 years old.

Oh, and i'm sure that no sane person reading this thread will overlook the fact that where I answered your question, you completely sidestepped mine.

If you meant something difference, then you should at least have the background knowledge to ask what you actually want to know.

 

OIM:

Yes. And also by the scientific experts in such matters.

No. Impacts continue today, but at a far lower rate than in the past.

There are still shooting stars. Go outside at night in a dark location, and you might even see some!

Did you not know this?

'fraid not.

 

No.

Only a few days ago, it was announced that rocks have been found and dated to about 4.3 billion years.

 

OIM:

Fine. We can agree to disagree then.

It increases, at a very slow rate, given the current rate of impacts.

Not sure what you're talking about here. I haven't quoted you out of context. On the contrary, I quoted your entire post.

It's hard to dig for rocks at the bottom of the ocean.

How could Canada be 4.3 billion years old if the entire earth was only 60,000 years old?

 

Another fallacy posed as a question.

Your questioning a claim that I did not make - technicaly a strawman fallacy.

No, I am neither stating or implying that the earth is only 60,000 years old, and frankly it's really low to imply that I am.

My recollection is that the age of the ocean floor is measured by a variety of methods including stratigraphy, measurements of magnetic field strengths, and direct radiometric dating.

Here's a (partial) list of methods, all of which are valid over different time scales.

argon-argon (Ar-Ar)
fission track dating
helium (He-He)
iodine-xenon (I-Xe)
lanthanum-barium (La-Ba)
lead-lead (Pb-Pb)
lutetium-hafnium (Lu-Hf)
neon-neon (Ne-Ne)
optically stimulated luminescence dating
potassium-argon (K-Ar)
radiocarbon dating
rhenium-osmium (Re-Os)
rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr)
samarium-neodymium (Sm-Nd)
uranium-lead (U-Pb)
uranium-lead-helium (U-Pb-He)
uranium-thorium (U-Th)
uranium-uranium (U-U)

As you can see, we're not just limited to Radiocarbon dating.

So what's your next lie?

 

Here's an article that discusses dating oceanic crust using Zircons:
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=104546

Here's one that uses U-Pb dating for sea floor dating.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/310/5748/654?ck=nck

 

And this is precisely the sort of thing you have been warned about in the other thread.

This statement bears absolutely no resemblence to what I have said, and is in no way implied in what i've said.

As well as being a blatant lie, it's a strawman fallacy.

 

Again, you're a liar and quoting me out of context.

They Radiocarbon dating can not be reliably used to date materials more than 60,000 years old.
They do not use Radiocarbon dating to date the age of oceanic crust.

 

That also has been explained to you.

Zircon dating.
Magnetic reversal history (used to be the primary method, they compary the history of reversals to that measured in terrestrial lava flows that can be accurately and reliably dated).
Stratigraphy, based of seismology.