The predictions of Walt Brown

And that is exactly why creationism and ID will NEVER be more than a fantasy. It's simply a dead end.Not only bad science, even worse Theology.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No, it's why it is a better approach. It runs 'rings' around the competition.

Oh yeah, then how does Walt's theory model the deposition of limestone interbedded with shale, sandstone, chert, evaporite, etc. by a flood?

Well, first of all if you are referring to my ring thing, can't blame that on walt. He says, I believe that the stuff may all have come from the waters under the earth. Even I would think that, even if a lot of lime was introduced, this wouldn't mean that there would have been plenty around from sealife, etc, already.

If and when somebody comes up with contradictory interpretations of the evidence, we'll listen. Note that contradictory interpretations of selected evidence don't count; we need contradictory interpretations of all the relevant evidence. All the "contradictory interpretations" that creationists have come up with to date involve ignoring large parts of the relevant evidence. Absolutely. I believe that too.God wrote the rocks, Man wrote the Bible.The best evidence, that God wrote in the rocks, is that there was no world-wide flood. Yes. Solar wind is much much hotter than the Earth, and is far to diffuse to have any heat transfer effect. Yup. The energy released (there's a huge difference in potential energy between a planetary ring in space and the parts of a planetary ring on Earth, and that energy would have to be released as heat) would sterilize the planet and probably melt the crust. It would probably cause some winds, too, but nothing living would be left to feel them.IOW, it would leave some detectable traces . I haven't heard of a two-moons theory. I think you are mis-remembering.There's no need for a "plausible sounding way to explain how our moon just doesn't fit into their older theories", because there is no "our moon just doesn't fit into their older theories". The current theories are all plausible and fit the evidence just fine; AFAIK the impact theory is leading the others by a pretty wide margin at the moment but the others are still alive. See Theories of Formation for the Moon.If you want to disappear a canopy or some rings, it's meaningless without consideration of the energy and heat involved.

quote:

---

Yup. The energy released (there's a huge difference in potential energy between a planetary ring in space and the parts of a planetary ring on Earth, and that energy would have to be released as heat) would sterilize the planet and probably melt the crust. It would probably cause some winds, too, but nothing living would be left to feel them.

---

Does this mean you think it is imossible earth had any form of band, or ring? Or is it just that how you think a ring would dissipate would be likely resulting in more heat. Now,I hope it isn't having to do with the little reflector part. I don't think a ring would break up, really like that. But it does seem probable that a ring, or band around earth could have a range of effects on many things, including temperature. As far as leaving a trace, what about the lime (c02) factor I brought up?
I think also you may be rendering a premature verdict, because, has a ring theoretically really even been looked at, and how things would be if it it were to break up. First of all, really, what a ring is really even exactly made of, besides 'some carbon rich' stuff. Then, how many types of rings could there be, and how it applies to earth. Walt envisions the seam ripping all around the world, like a baseball, in the mid oceanic mountain areas, with water jetting high up, some even into space, carrying debris to become asteroids, and such. With all this new water, and water vapor, and rocks, and stuff suddenly being introduced into an atmosphere, and space, is it any wonder the ring was affected? Like a rainbow, when the sun decreases can no longer exist. I have to appeal your verdict. Now, in the ending of the ring, besides a new source for much of earth's limestone formation, (?)
"Though they look continuous from the Earth, the rings are actually composed of innumerable small particles each in an independent orbit. They range in size from a centimeter or so to several meters. " "The ring particles seem to be composed primarily of water ice, but they may also include rocky particles with icy coatings" " Voyager confirmed the existence of puzzling radial inhomogeneities in the rings called "spokes" which were first reported by amateur astronomers (left). Their nature remains a mystery, but may have something to do with Saturn's magnetic field"
http://ringmaster.arc.nasa.gov/saturn/saturn.html
There were some concerns about things like apparent magnetic reversals around flood year, also, walt mentioned, seems the rings could be brought into play here as well. Walt saysI think also, that it is thought giant frozen pieces of water came down around flood time, freezing some mammoths and things instantly as they landed, I notice in the ring article here some pieces are up to 'several meters'! Now, how is it, if we take all this water-ICE that would be in a ring, and drop some of it on earth, it is necessarily hot? Limestone, magnetic effects, new climate, water, ice, in cosmic proportions all available to add to the mix!

Since it will land at about 18,000 miles per hour, yes, it will be hot. Remember the Space Shuttle? And even if it weren't heated to vapor by atmospheric drag, what do you think would happen to a bullet made of ice when it hits something at five miles per second?Don't make me do the calculation. You don't want to see it, Cosmo.Walt is either loony, or he's trying to con the people that slept through physical science class in the ninth grade.

I think what he doesn't understand is that heat and kinetic energy are almost the same thing.

quote:

---

Does this mean you think it is imossible earth had any form of band, or ring?

---

How about we start with evidence that there was a ring. Why would we put something into a hypothesis for which there is no evidence?

Coragyps, If a parachuter's speed averages only 120 miles per hour, what makes you believe Hail coming down will achieve that much of a greater speed. I heard that super cold downdrafts, but never heard that they were going 18,000 miles per hour.

Ummmm... the parachute maybe???

I think he means a skydiver with the parachute still closed (but it still doesn't help him).

---

Confused ? You will be...

Tom, the rings are, I presume you think, in orbit. How fast do they have to be going to stay in LOE(low earth orbit)?You're right though, that they won't reach the service of the earth at 18,000 mph. How do they slow down? What happens when they do?You see, Tom, you are making stuff up (as is Brown, Hovind et all). You (and they) demonstrate almost everytime that you write something that you haven't a clue. You may think that you are presenting arguments in support of a flood. All you actually do is make the idea look sillier and sillier. This is the danger of trying to pretend to know something about an area that needs a bit more than half an hour of study. Especially if that half an hour is spent with a source that is almost as ignorant and deliberately trying to mislead you.

roxrkool, I guess I was sort of wrong, the record is 330 mph, though it did say freefall speeds are approximately 120 mph.Skydiving FAQ | Long Island Skydiving CenterHow fast will we be falling?
Typical freefall speeds are approximately 120 MPH although this can increase or decrease slightly with body size and position. The freefall speed record is over 330 mph. An experienced skydiver using specialized equipment achieved this speed record.

Which is utterly irrelevant.