"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
link.net...
http://www.state.nd.us/ndgs/Rebound/...%20Rebound.htm

Says:

"The greatest measured rates of isostatic or postglacial rebound in North
America occur in the Richmond Gulf area of southeastern Hudson Bay
(presumably where the ice was thickest). There, a kind of "staircase" of
185 Holocene (postglacial) strandlines (former shorelines) provide a
continuous record of emergence from about 8,000 years ago until the
present.

Big problem there is that this is based on uniform movement.... an
implausible assumption which corrupts the basis of the estimate.


At least 935 feet of recovery (isostatic rebound) has been recorded by
these
strandlines. By determining the age of these strand lines, and by
subtracting the apparent component of uplift due to relative sea level
fluctuations, geologists have been able to measure rates of isostatic
rebound.

Not rates so much as limits...... rates are "estimated" based on
"assumption" of annual rates.

The rates of uplift have declined from a maximum of 33 to 39 feet
per 100 years immediately following deglaciation (8,000 years ago at
Hudson
Bay - in North Dakota deglaciation occurred about 5,000 years earlier) to
a
current rate of about 4.3 feet/100 years. In other words, the shoreline
at
Churchill, Manitoba on the shore of Hudson Bay is currently rising about
4.3
feet per century."

Again ... the local geomorphology has a lot to do with the rate of rebound.


Not only are you remarkably wrong in your statements, the fastest North
American rebound on record is right under your own two feet! And you've
shot
both of them!

No... I haven't


You are not even a barstool geologist! The only rocks you've ever
encountered are in your head!

You are mistaken..... I've been involved in a detailed reasearch on the
geology of the Northwest Territories.. specifically Glacial Lake McConnell,
it's beach ridge deposits and limits of lacustrine impact as well as the
Moraine, Alluvial formations. I've worked with Petroleum Geologists and
Geological Engineers.


Is that enough of a beating or do you want some more?

Bring it on Bob.... your current stance on evolution will anger your God
when he realizes that you do not believe him to be responsible for such
action.

Seriously Bob... how can anyone lend credence to an argument of scientific
nature presented by someone who believes in "Creationism"???

CM