Walt Brown's super-tectonics

JonF,If you send in a 50 year old lava rock it will always come back dating millions of years old, because of argon/potassium has too great of a half life, 1.3 billion years, to date a 50 year old rock, I've heard it said, that its like dating a fly on a truck scale, no wonder the paleontologist like dating lava rocks by the argon potassium method, this makes all rocks date old, then to make matters worse, the paleontologists date not the fossils themselves, but the sediments that buried them and rely on your faith that the fossils are as old as the sediments that buried them, etc...
P.S. Then you have leaching of of argon, argon rising up from the earth (snellings diamonds found with excess argon) or if the lava melted other surrounding basement rocks contaminating the accuracy, contributing argon, making the lava rocks appear older, etc...

Whatever, again, your magnet analogy is moot. You know metal shavings align themselves with a more powerful magnet. What you don't know is that when minerals are heated beyond the Curie point (~550 degrees C), the magnetic minerals basically loose their magnetism. As the magma begins to cool, magnetic minerals re-acquire their magnetic property and will align themselves to the prevailing pole - which is termed remnant magnetism (THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS WITH A COMPASS!). The magma eventually solidifies, freezing (or locking in) that alignment in place.Measuring the direction that the grains point can be performed by a magnetometer. I suggest you Google 'Curie Point,' 'magnetometer,' 'remnant magnetism,' etc.

huh?? I suddenly feel like banging my head into the wall...The accretionary wedge is not pushing anything up and I can't see how you would even assume such a thing from the links I provided. It's sediment and rock that has accumulated at the subduction boundary. As the oceanic crust subducts, some of the OVERLYING sediment/rock is scraped off - sort of like your foot at the top of an escalator if you don't lift it. Accumulating sediment may raise overlying sediment/rock, but it's localized and NOT responsible for creating mountain ranges. What the heck are you saying here? It makes NO sense at all.Please explain to me the mechanism causing this plate sucking action. And what makes you think or say the "atlantic tectonic plates" are floating? How was the wedge broken and WHAT is pressing toward the trenches??? Apparently I've inadvertantly supported the hydroplate theory. Interesting. Whatever, I don't give a crap what you say the hydroplate theory states. A few of us have shown you that plates are moving AND subducting. Have you understood those links at all? Do you agree or not with that evidence? If not, show us why.Please address the points we have all brought up and quit stating over and over again what the hydroplate theory states. WHAT DO YOU THINK and WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE PRESENTED??

​

You're wrong.

​

[This message has been edited by roxrkool, 01-04-2004]

And it will only feel good when you quit.

---

Common sense isn't

That's too off-topic. See For whatever - your insult, and radioisotope dating

Walts theory is quite complex, but basically hes saying is that the trenches were pulled down, and you believe they were pushed down, etc...and he also says that the tecktonic plates are inching toward the trenches, and that the plates are like floating on a more dense layer that this is called isostatic equilbrium, however, the trenches are a glaring depature from this equilibium, etc...The Origin of Oceanic Trenches In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Origin of Ocean Trenches, Earthquakes, and the Ring of FireMost of the earth’s crust is vertically balanced, like blocks of ice floating in a pan of water. Large, dense blocks sink in, while lighter blocks float higher up. This is called isostatic equilibrium. However, oceanic trenches are earth’s most glaring departure from this equilibrium. That may be an important clue about how trenches formed. As various authorities have written:... trenches are characterized by large negative gravity anomalies. That is, there appears to be a mass deficiency beneath the trenches, and thus something must be holding the trenches down or else they would rise in order to restore isostatic equilibrium. 2The most striking phenomenon associated with the trenches is a deficiency in gravity ... Measurements of gravity near trenches show pronounced departures from the expected values. These gravity anomalies are among the largest found on earth. It is clear that isostatic equilibrium does not exist near the trenches. The trench-producing forces must be acting ... to pull the crust under the trenches downward! 3In other words, something has pulled, not pushed, trenches down. The downward pull of gravity in and above trenches is less than expected, even after adjusting for the trench’s shape, so less mass exists under trenches than one would expect. It is as if something deep inside the earth sucked downward the material directly below trenches. This would reduce the mass below trenches. (If you wanted to show a slight weight loss, weigh yourself on a scale while on a ship sailing over a trench.)A useful illustration is to think of a slight vacuum, or absence of mass, existing under trenches. While the term density deficiency is more descriptive and accurate, most people understand the consequence of a partial vacuum which nature abhors. That is, nature always tries to move material to fill a vacuum. If one waited long enough, material inside the earth must flow in under trenches to fill this partial vacuum. Today, crustal plates move an inch or so each year toward trenches, so this partial vacuum is being filled in modern times. Later, we will see where the missing mass under trenches went and what created the partial vacuum. Clearly, this filling in could not have been going on for long.[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-04-2004]

JonF, Thats why I didn't explain the problems with argon potassium dating, it was off topic, but you all believe zero argon exists in melted lavas, and this was proven bogus by Snelling's 50 year old rock where potassium had not the time to be converted to argon in 50 years, so your dating method is already in error by millions of years, to a creationists that believes the fossils are only thousands of years old, to tell them the fossils are as old as the basalt lava that entombed them, is an insult, when newly formed basalt rock dates millions of years old, etc...
P.S. Then you have Snellings wood fossil preserved in Basalt lava, the basalt that dated millions of years old, however, C-14 dated this preserved wood fossil to be thousands, and not millions of years old, etc...the truth is you have no proof the fossils are old, etc...

roxrkool, I like the idea of plates crushing under the continental plates, only because its impossible for rock to bend to subduct down, so it had to of crushed under the plates, etc...
P.S. I explained how a tank wrinkles when flow leaves, it wrinkle inward, and this is what happened when the trenches formed, I know you all mean well, but its impossible for solid rock to bend at the angle of the trenches and subduct at this angle into the inner earth, etc...

You are iredeemably ignorant. You know nothing of how dating is actually carried out. Feeble and invalid excuse. If it was on-topic enough to mention at all, it's on-topic enough to explain and discuss. The truth is that you are just repeating the lies you've heard (and doing a poor job of that, with all the copying errors you're introducing), and you don't even understand what you're posting.It's on-topic in For whatever - your insult, and radioisotope dating. Either defend your claims or retract them. And stop making new claims about radioisotope dating if you don't intend to support them. Even if this were true, (which it is not), how does this affect the ages of rocks that date as 4 billion years old? A few million years error is less then a percent. The rocks are old, the fossils in the rocks are old. No, it's a statement of fact, and I've provided reasons why it's a statement of fact in the appropriate thread. Statements of fact that you do not like are not insults. The problem with those statements is yours, not ours. However, impugning the integrity of thousands of honest and hard working scientists by promulgating your lie is an insult. You really are a follower of liars and a lover of lies, aren't you? Do you profess a religion? You certainly aren't a follower of Juesus Christ.You should put more effort into getting your lies straight. Snelling's "wood" was encased in sandstone, and the sandstone was not dated.Since Snelling has refused to let experts examine his sample, we aren't 100% sure why he obtained his anomolous result; we'er only 99.999999999% sure. From correspondence with the lab that analyzed the sample and other sources it appears that the "wood" is not wood and the C-14 date is invalid because of contamination. See What about Snelling's fossilized Triassic wood giving a young C-14 age? and this link, which I've posted in this thread before, about half-way down the page: CREATION "SCIENCE"

Support your claim or retract it. Note that babbling more claims is not support; data and measurements are support.We have tons of data showing that it is possible for rock to bend at such angles, and we have lots of examples of rock that has bent to such angles without fracturing.

JonF, Thanks for your website, you shouldn't be upset when your own people admit that they can not age the fossils to be anything but older than 2 million years old, Snelling simply brought this to light, etc...however, interestingly, Snellings petrified wood sample still had enough C-14 to age 35,000 years old, enough to Question the age your geologists assigned of 225 to 230 million years,to the Hawkesbury Sandstone sediments that this petrified wood fossil was found, proving again what I've said, you have no basis to say the fossil record is as old as the dating by the argon potassium dating method, if you can not accurately date rocks younger than 2 million years old, then you can not accurately date the fossil record by the sediments that buried them, the paleontologist rely on your faith that you can date the fossils by the sediments that buried them, etc...however, I have no problem with the moon rock being 4.6 billion years old, but this doesn't mean the sun has been a star 4.6 billion years, though its interesting how you all justify the age the sun has been a star by this rock, even in this you have no basis to say the sun has been a star longer than 13,000 years, though you believe it to be at least this old, so I can say the sun is only 13,000 years a star, and you have no evidence that this is not true, and you can not say I'm lying because the bible says this is true, kjv genesis 1:3-4.http://www.island.net/~rjbw/CreationScience.htmlGetting back to Dr. Snelling's paper, there are some points that can now be made: One must presume that Dr. S. was aware of Geochron's inability to provide reliable K-Ar dates on materials less than 2 million years old. Nevertheless he sent them samples that are less than 60 years old. And there is no mention in his paper of Geochron's limitations in this respect. Dating Dilemma: Fossil Wood in Ancient Sandstone | Answers in Genesis The Hawkesbury Sandstone has been assigned a Middle Triassic ‘age’ of around 225—230 million years by most geologists.1,6,7 This is based on its fossil content, and on its relative position in the sequence of rock layers in the region (the Sydney Basin). All of these are placed in the context of the long ages timescale commonly assumed by geologists.

whatever, you are off topic. Please move this reply to the thread that JonF provided.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

roxrkool, I like the idea of plates crushing under the continental plates, only because its impossible for rock to bend to subduct down, so it had to of crushed under the plates, etc...

---

--You have no emperical reason to believe that this is even a viable alternative. The stresses and strains involved in the subduction of oceanic lithosphere causes the whole lithosphere to bend and the upper most portion of the oceanic plate (where temperature is not high) to fracture and undergo intense strains and stresses at shallow depths in the mantle. As the temperature of the subducting lithosphere increases the material is able to deform plastically with ease and this is why the intensity and frequency of earthquakes tends to gradually decrease with depth in the mantle. Walt Brown's scenario just doesn't explain this data. The oceanic lithosphere was not and is not 'crushed under the continents' but is subducted. Copious geophysical data support this scenario and refute Walt Brown's geodynamics. Until you can begin to address and explain this data there really isn't much to say.

quote:

---

P.S. I explained how a tank wrinkles when flow leaves, it wrinkle inward, and this is what happened when the trenches formed, I know you all mean well, but its impossible for solid rock to bend at the angle of the trenches and subduct at this angle into the inner earth, etc...

---

--You need to explain why trenches do not reflect the morphology of an imploded can.Cheers,
-Chris Grose

Replied to in the appropriate topic.

quote:

---

roxrkool, I like the idea of plates crushing under the continental plates, only because its impossible for rock to bend to subduct down, so it had to of crushed under the plates, etc...

---

Learn physics. Here's some keywords to start you on your journey:Tensile strain.
Shear strain.
Tensile stress.
Shear stress.
Bulk modulus.
Young's modulus.
Poisson's ratio.
Shear modulus.Learn how these properties change under temperature.These things are incredibly well understood, and pretty much everyone who takes a college physics course (or even a high school physics course, depending on the school and the course) will cover them.I'll never get over how people who have never studied a lick of science in their life so readily throw away everything that has been learned and tested over the ages as if they're some sort of omniscient being. How haughty can you get to think that you, who has never studied a thing about the subject, knows more than the entire scientific community who relies on these things every day? Not only researchers do - these things are, for example, critical to architecture. Every bridge that is constructed, every skyscraper erected, every engine in the design room, every airplane wing planned, all rely completely on these basic tenants of physics.Who are you to think you know better than almost every professional engineer in the world?

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."