Walt Brown's super-tectonics

quote:

---

Coragyps, It's just a theory, however, they are finding clams on top of Mt. Everest, with sediments 3,000 feet thick, however its a granite mountain, was this under the oceans at one time, if so, then why is it granite, if the oceans bottom is suppose to be basalt.

---

I am sorry, whatever, but Walt's story is not a theory, it is a dream. In fact, I dare say it is an hallucination. Virtually every sentence you write about it is so stocked with misunderstanding and misinformation that it makes no sense at all and defies a rational response. For instance, 'clams' are not found on Mt. Everest. Pelecypods are found within the strata that make up Mt. Everest. Sedimentary rocks cannot make up a 'granite mountain'. And the ocean bottom is not basalt. Nor is there any part of the oceanic crust that is composed of granite. You are either in gross misunderstanding of Walt's thesis or he has gone off the deep end himself, or both. Frankly, I have been unable to read his stuff either. It makes utterly no sense at all. You are being deceived by Walt Brown. The 'hydroplate theory' is not even in the same area code as real science.

quote:

---

Pelecypods do include clams. Still, clams can be buried in closed, growth, position by any number of processes. A good hurricane or storm can wash a layer of sediment onto the bottom of a continental shelf, lagoon, estuary, or tidal flat and bury any number of clams in growth position. With rising sea level or a prograding coastline, these sediments can eventually be buried by additional sediments and preserved within the rock record.

---

I'm afraid that I introduced some confusion here. Clams are indeed pelecypods, but no pelecypods are found at Mt. Everest, as Bill has reported above. Sorry about that ... insufficient sleep last weekend. My point however stands. Whatever has been misinformed by his favorite professional creationists.

quote:

---

Coragyps, Yep, I believe the fossils were buried suddenly, I used to watch creationist documentaries on sky angel satellight, they had a documentary, on how quickly organics can convert to coal, or oil, depending only on pressure and if water is present, etc...

---

This is another silly YEC argument. Indeed, oil might form relatively rapidly. So What? I can change the oil in my car pretty rapidly, too. That doesn't mean that I only did it yesterday. Actually, I've done it many times in the past. The important facts are that the oil formed under the proper conditions throughout much of geological history, it migrated and then it stopped (maybe). THe real questions are when, how and why.The amount of time it takes for oil to form is not really relevant to the debate unless you are talking about the time to generate the biomass, bury it, allow the proper reactions to occur, and then for the oil to move to where whe find it today. These, taken all together, require a lot more time than just 'forming oil'. Then you have to account for the different ages of the oil. As you can see, of course, it is a much more complex question than YECs make it out to be. You are not educated in this area and that is what the professional creationists rely on: your ignorance of the subject. If you and others knew better, they'd be out of work.

quote:

---

whatever, are you having a bit of trouble reading? Brown's stuff is all junk. There is no "hydroplate theory". There is a lot of stupid arm waving that ignores most of the facts and doesn't begin to touch the issues that even a layman can raise.

---

whatever, I feel pretty safe in adding that if True Creation, wmscott and Ned agree on this, you can be pretty sure that you are wasting your time on Walt Brown. Give it up and move on.

quote:

---

If you're right that the dates are off by 4.5 billion years, then much of science as we know it is false..

​

Yes amazing isn't it! Pity the so called science 'house' was built on the sand of false assumptions!

---

Yes, amazing that no one noticed until some YECs came along!

quote:

---

I ask you again: Who was caught? When? By whom?

​

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.

---

What do you mean? You haven't dredged up one yet...

quote:

---

of which your opinion will probably be similar? Hmm, seems the methods are less than perfect,

---

Ah, I see, it has to be perfect for you.

quote:

---

didn't some pyshics claim around a 70 % success rate?

---

I don't know. First, define pyshics.

quote:

---

Seems Walt says about 50% of those checked were way way off! ha

---

Yep. According to Walt that is. Walt is wrong. So, what's your point?