The predictions of Walt Brown

I would suggest that for any claimed prediction:1) The reasoning linking it to Brown's hypothesis should be given
(e.g. why is the 70,000 years in prediction 32 important ?)2) The expections of mainstream science should be accurately described - i.e. if there is uncertainty and controversy that should be given. The underlying reasoning for these expectations should also be given.3) In cases where it is claimed that the prediction has been confirmed the evidence should be given.

quote:

---

17: One should never find marine fossils, layered strata, oil, coal seams, or limestone directly beneath undisturbed rock ice or frozen mammoth carcasses. (Although I think it might be possible for oil to be found beneath since it migrates, though I'm not sure)

---

Alaska and Siberia are both oil-producing areas. And without layered strata how are you going to get oil reserves ? You need permeable rock where the oil collects with a cap of impermeable rock to keep the oil trapped.I don't see much hope for this one.And BTW if the mammoths died at the start of the flood shouldn't se find their remains deeply buried rather than relatively near the surface ?

I can't hold out much hope that none of the mammoths is above oil fields - they're just to widely distributed.And although Brown doesn't seem to clear on where there is hydroplate activity, why doesn't the oceanic ridge running south of Alaska and Eastern Siberia indicate such activity ?And looking at the geological map of Alaska that cn be downloaded at http://wwwdggs.dnr.state.ak.us/akgeomap.html I'd say that there's not a hope that Brown is correct on that prediction.

If there is so much variation in Alaskan geology that knocks down the idea that frozen mammoths weren't deeply buried because of a lack of hydroplate activity. There must have been plenty of opportunities for the mammoths to have gotten buried and fossilised under rock.So why isn't that a prediction ? THat we should find mammoth remains in deep, early, sedimentary rock

But I'm not making assumptions about what the hydroplates would do - I am looking at the geology. There are sedimentary strata over significant parts of Alaska and to suggest that this material simply missed all the mammoths by chance is not very plausible. There's nothing in the distribution of the rock or the mammoth remains to suggest any mechanism that would prevent mammoth remains being buried under rock that conventional geology would say is far older than the mammoths.

You may be taking the wrong approach.Consider this, If Brown's model is accurate then:EITHERthe freexing that killed the mammoths and rhinos is directly related to the layering of rock so no area is affected by bothORthere were many mammoths and rhinos killed and the frozen ones are just those that happened to remain near the scenario.In the first case you should be looking for a simple relationship between the two effects. If you have to look at compications then it probably isn't the case. In the second there ought to be rather a lot of deeply buried mammoth fossils.And given that we do have fossils of quite delicate creatures - they're rare but they do exist in areas like the Burgess Shale - then I don't think there's a good case for assuming that all the mammoth remains would be destroyed. And while we have only searched a small fraction of the Earth's rock for fossils we probably have a good enough sample to conclude that it is very unlikely that there are Precambrian mammoths.Which gets on to another issue. It should be possible to get some idea of the order we should expect to see in the fossil record from whatever mechanisms Brown invokes to explain it. Since this is one of the big problems for YEC it is an issue that can't be ignored.

quote:

---

But I hear you, I see Kent, Ron, & Walt as men of integrity bucking against the grain of acceptable thought.

---

Well that's your problem. You see they AREN'T men of integrity at all.Kent Hovind lied to the court to try and avoid paying the taxes he owed.Ron Wyatt claimed to have made finds that he certainly does not. To be fair to him he may have simply been delusional to the point of insanity. But that didn't stop him taking money when he couldn't deliver.Walt Brown claims - or certainly claimed until recently - that no scientist dares debate him - but what he means is that when somebody DOES take up his challenge he weasels out of it.