Walt Brown's super-tectonics

So then, are you saying some boy scouts went on an oceanic ridge hike, and Walt's out to lunch because these boys told you their wet compass did not 'flip around wildly '? Or are you just trying to show disdain in a manner that would sound like you're in on something that is quite superior! ('As far as the Heavens are above the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways' This time it was God who seems to share your abilities!)

Ok so some were wounded before being flash frozen-granted!

If the accurate date is when they were violently buried, fine! --Of course it 'is expected' that fossils are the 'same age'. Question is what is that age!

I was not implying anything was 'sitting around rotting' (except some theories) All I said is that 'some' could have been injured (bleeding, 'bitten') prior to freezing. Why not? How many were eating before the flood? Or hunting, or were washed in by water, or hurt by debris, or fell, or bit their neighbor for a higher place to get away from the rising water, or etc.?
As far as flash freezing, I don't know what extent was regular freezing, drowning, flash, or etc. Some did seem fairly flash though, apparently.

Did I say that? I think my point was more that some of these straw graspers are apparently inclined to interpret things how they like. As in the early p t interpetations Walt hit on. In other words, they did not, in many cases, seem to know a reversal from an anomaly, let alone an ancient world multi magnetic reversal from a rubarb pie.

Who are the foxes guarding the hen house in this case? Does the results one expect to find have any bearing on what they do? Like a pychic, who comes up right sometime, how much can we depend on the sessions? In setting up the process, do we assume anything at all? In as much as they can come up with recent dates that can be verified by history, fine. Aside from that, I'd have to trust the pyscic, regardless of the updated crystal ball.

If you read the thread, it should be noticed the word caught was used in such a way as to refer to evidence like in court that was false, so as the rest would be thrown out. It wasn't that an individual was refered to, as being anything but unable to put a whole equation together. I've read many cases where the results were comically way off in dates. The whole method has been 'caught' a good number of times! Busted. You listed I presume some bigwigs involved in the dating process, as if I meant they were fraudulent. I think you chose to do that. Perhaps I should chose to rattle off a few names who believed in a creator, Einstein (I believe) Newton, and on and on to probably most big names of earlier science. So, regardless of one's name, or job, there has been errors. Those dates not thought to be in error, have little bearing on any actual real time facts, since
it's more of a 'if things were as they now are, it would have taken so many years' type result. You and anyone else can respect that as you wish. I have a limited regard for it. You want to talk about name calling, accusations, and such--read what some of these guys spit out when you mention Walt!

True, any more than schooling helped some to get the first books! I am hoping not many scientists (or Bible prophets) would lie. They would simply voice their opinions the best they know how, according to what they were taught. My thoughts lie more with the ideas themselves, rather that with the people currently swallowing them.

Apparently Walt doesn't agree! Could it be two plus four that they thought was 2 + 2? I think Walt believes there were reversals, but that they happened quickly in the flood period. So, if this data you brought up would lead one to accept millions of years in age I would say it need a new look. If not, I don't much care!

Actually, I'll admit, I trust the decay rates as well!!! They do decay! So do people, old age! I do not trust that because something has a decay rate you can extrapulate a long backward time frame though! -- As far as the 2 billion year thing, why would one say that?

I like that thinking!

So even after they screw up I need to go back and give the poor guys a second chance? Even though the information I received was very wrong and would have resulted in a fatal flaw in any conclusion, or verdict I might have rendered! I should go back, and bend over, and take the guys updated, new and improved opinion as fact? Even if we were to accept his peers work, were we there a billion years ago? How could one prove they were, or it was? likewise how could we disprove it? As someone asked, I think me to do.? yes we can all have a beer and agree that there's a decay we can measure, even if sometimes the measurements are obviously fiction. My problem comes with the time aspect.

Two billion light years away? Therein lies a good portion of why it ain't so. Why would one assume that distance? Now, are you positive it's nickel powering a light curve? You now, people used to think a rainbow up in the sky was an arch! Tell you what, take your lab 2 billion miles for a closer look, then let me know how your guesswork turned out!
I won't be able to entertain folks at the forum here for a few hours. So some replies may look good for a while. I may peek in later and question authority a little more. So far Walt's theory is looking better, when I see the stuff posters have so far come up with.

Yes amazing isn't it! Pity the so called science 'house' was built on the sand of false assumptions! Walt's book says "..in more than 400 of these published checks (about half of those sampled)the...ages were at least one geologic age in error-..." Need we dredge up more. of which your opinion will probably be similar? Hmm, seems the methods are less than perfect, didn't some pyshics claim around a 70 % success rate? Seems Walt says about 50% of those checked were way way off! ha Oh, OK I thought since so many names were included in the list, they perhaps were people of some weight, and not jusy anonymous! But, as you wish I'll pretend I never gave a passing glance to their names!

I thought I said I agreed with decay rates? Where I would question results, is where a world recent flood, and different conditions would not be taken into account, such as more or less carbon, water etc. which I am told would affect a carbon dating? No? Now ladies and gentlemen, a word from..Walt! "..To estimate a date prior to the beginning of written records, one must assume the dating clock has operated at a known rate, the clock’s initial setting is known, and the clock has not been disturbed. These three assumptions are almost always unstated, overlooked, or invalid. ....A major assumption underlying all radioactive dating techniques is that rates of decay, which have been essentially constant over the past 100 years, have also been constant over the past 4,600,000,000 years. This huge, critical, and untestable assumption is made, even though no one knows what causes radioactive decay.a Furthermore, two lines of evidence suggest radioactive decay was once much greater than it is today. ...
The public has been greatly misled concerning the consistency and trustworthiness of radiometric dating techniques (the potassium-argon method, the rubidium-strontium method, and the uranium-thorium-lead method). For example, geologists hardly ever subject their radiometric age measurements to blind tests. a In science, such tests are a standard procedure for overcoming experimenter bias. Many published radiometric dates can be checked by comparisons with the evolution-based ages for fossils that sometimes lie above or below radiometrically dated rock. In more than 400 of these published checks (about half of those sampled), the radiometrically determined ages were at least one geologic age in errorindicating major errors in methodology. One wonders how many other dating checks were not even published because they, too, were in error. " !
and here's more Walt -- .."Although textbooks show these so-called reversals as smooth bands paralleling the Mid-Oceanic Ridge, there is nothing smooth about them. Some bands even run perpendicular to the ridge axisthe opposite of what plate tectonics predicts. Also, the perpendicular bands correspond to fracture zones.8 The hydroplate theory will explain these magnetic anomalies.On the continents, rapid but limited changes in earth’s magnetic field have occurred. Lava cools at known rates, from the outside of the flow toward its center. Magnetic particles floating in lava align themselves with the earth’s magnetic field. When the lava cools and solidifies, that orientation becomes fixed. Knowing this cooling rate and measuring the changing direction of the magnetic fields throughout several solidified lava flows, we can see that at one time the earth’s magnetic field changed rapidlyup to 6 degrees per day for several days.9Submarine Canyons. The ocean floor has several hundred canyons, some of which exceed the Grand Canyon in both length and depth. One submarine canyon is three times deeper than the Grand Canyon. Another is ten times longer (2,300 miles), so long it would stretch nearly across the United States. Most of these V-shaped canyons are extensions of major rivers. Examples include the Amazon Canyon, Hudson Canyon, Ganges Canyon, Congo Canyon, and Indus Canyon. What could gouge out canyons 15,000 feet below sea level? Perhaps ancient rivers cut these canyons when the ocean floor was higher or sea level was lower. If so, how did that happen? Swift rivers supposedly cut most continental canyons. However, currents measured in submarine canyons are much too slow, generally less than one mile per hour. Frequently, the flow is in the wrong direction. Submarine landslides or currents of dense, muddy water sometimes occur. However, they would not form long, branching patterns that characterize river systems and submarine canyons. Furthermore, experiments with thick, muddy water in submarine canyons have not demonstrated any canyon-cutting ability "