Walt Brown's super-tectonics

This is a response to whatever. Being warned that the thread was going off-topic, I decided to open a new thread.

quote:

---

the slow moving evolutionists techtonic plate theory doesn't address the fractured rock they are finding under the granite mantle, etc...

---

And neither does Brown's scenario. If the continents tried to move that fast, the entire continents would be fractured. More to the point, if the mountains were raised as fast as this scenario states, the mountains would be formed of shattered boulders and rocks, not the folded layers that we actually do see.And there is still the objections that:so much water could not exist in such large caverns as Brown suggests - this would be too unstable and would have collapsed right away.the collapse of so many of these caverns should leave obvious traces on the earth's surface - evidence that the land sunk dramatically (more fractures!) as well as the exit points of the water - massive craters.the water would have been very, very hot - the world would not have drowned, it (along with Noah and his floating zoo) would have been steamed.There is too much wrong with this "theory" for it to be true. If Brown's ideas were correct, then the signs should be so bloody obvious, but like every other flood scenario there just isn't any real signs of it.

quote:

---

They say they are finding clams in the closed position, which infers that they were buried alive,

---

Dead clam shells can be found at the beach in both open and closed positions.

whatever, modern GPS technology allows us to measure the movement of the continental plates. The Mid-Atlantic ridge surfaces in Iceland, and, indeed, the plates are spreading.As far as your flat top sea mounts, indeed, they used to poke above the sea, and erosion wore them down to sea level, hence the flat tops. Where did the water come from? From the melting glaciers when the Ice Ages ended.

quote:

---

For example, is it or is it not true that a fossil can be and is used to date a strata, and a strata can be and is used to date a fossil?

---

I'm not sure what this means. Radiometric dating gives an accurate date for the stratum. It is expected that the fossils contained in it have the same age. If a certain fossil species is always found, in every instance, in strata that are between x million years old and y million years old, then presumably if that species is found in a different stratum, that stratum is the age of the fossil. If there is no independent method of checking the age, we will assume that age is correct. But geologists always, when possible, check the age using radiometric techniques. Occasionally, when radiometrically dated, the age is different that expected from the fossil. Then geologists must revise the possible ages of that species.