Walt Brown's super-tectonics

I corrected your typo, it should have read:

Hopelessly inadequate? It predicts dead-on where they're going to occur. And the "when" predictions are getting more accurate - soon we'll be able to give months of advance warning: Page not found | WIREDLooks like they've accurately forcasted several major earthquakes already. You were saying?

As the article said, the problem isn't the earthquake, it's the buildings. Even if we had known about the earthquake in Iran what would warning them have done? They were too poor to move or build better buildings. Most of them wouldn't have believed the warning or done anything about it. Read up on the mythological figure "Cassandra" if you want to understand the likely human response to dire warning.What's imagined? The article gives several examples of earthquakes that they predicted. They can only predict in regions that they have sufficient geologic data for. It's a big earth, you know. apparently they just didn't have any data for Iran or else they could have predicted that one too, apparently. Maybe.Did you read the article, actually? How come I don't think you did? The minute you have a better theory than plate tectonics, which has made real and observed predictions, why don't you let us know. Until then we'll keep on keepin' on with the theory we have, as it seems to work just fine.I think it's funny that you call it a ouiji board, but your proposed alternative is a 2000-year-old book of fairy tales. Not exactly better.

Reply moved to Fossil Sorting for Simple.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-03-2004]

Enough of the assumptions have been independantly verified to know that they are valid assumptions. Many of the assumptions aren't assumptions at all but rather necessary consequences of other, independant models that have themselves been verified (for instance, particle physics). In the sense that they're books of the Bible? Obviously not. In the sense that multiple, unrelated methods usually return similar dates for the same rock, yes, they are gospel.If you propose that some unknown factor is messing up the dating, you'll have to dig pretty deep for a method that would affect multiple, unrelated dating mechanisms in exactly the same way.By all means, though, pop over to the dating forums and try your hand. They've been a little quiet, as of late... Any idiot can tell the difference between high-pressure damage to wet concrete and gradual erosion of dry, stone-like concrete. Guess what? Geologists are not idiots. They can tell the difference in geologic strata, too.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-03-2004]

No, by experimental data. Which are few and far between. You'll have to do better to explain away the vast concordinance of unrelated dating methods than the occasional error in procedure. Well, the falls is only 12,000 years old - born yesterday, in geologic terms. So what? I don't recall modern geologic models claiming that all of the Earth's current features are 4 billion years old. The Colorado river, over a period of 6 million years. You can read all about it: No webpage found at provided URL: http://ic.ucsc.edu/~susans/eart3/Lectures/lecture4.htmlThere's nothing idiotic about the facts.

All the sources that I find on the web say around 10,000 years - after the last ice age. Why the discrepancy, I wonder?

Oh, right. That must be why you're the professor, and I'm the schloob.

You know, you actually have to show that I'm lying, not just say that I am. And if I can show that these dating oddities are the exception and not the rule, can I expect a retraction of your slanderous, dirty, lying insult? Maybe, but what would it matter? What does the age of Niagra Falls have to do with the Age of the Earth? I don't think anybody's saying that Niagra Falls has been around since the beginning of the Earth, creationist or no. Funny, I've seen both the Canyon and the river, and neither of them are what I would describe as "pitiful." Now who's lying?

Observation of Supernova 1987A demonstrates that decay rates haven't changed in 167,000 years. Which is what we expect, because the decay rates are apparently linked to the speed of light, which is constant, as you may know.You can read about it here: No webpage found at provided URL: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/age.htmRadiometric dating doesn't rest on assumption, but rather on experiment and observation, like the rest of science.

Um, you know, unless we're talking about something that bleeds...[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-03-2004]

Sorry I took it that way, but you weren't very clear.And your criticism is groundless. Dating is a technique, not magic. Things don't date themselves. If you set up the process wrong, you get tainted results. Just like any other scientific test.It's hardly dating's fault if the occasional grad student f*cks it up. I mean, occasionally surgery goes wrong, but you don't see people abandoning medicine altogether... Nobody said Niagra was 4.5 billion years old. Now who's lying?And we made it pretty clear what we were talking about: The falls are 12,000 years old. The rocks that make up the falls have been there for 550 million years. The material that makes up the rocks is as old as all the other material on Earth: 4.5 billion.You need to work on your reading comprehension if you're going to hang around on this board.

I'm saying that you can tell the difference between a wound inflicted before a flash freeze and one inflicted after, because before the freeze, blood seeps out of the wound. Blood doesn't seep out when it's frozen.It doesn't matter how fast the freeze is - blood will seep out of a wound immediately if it's not frozen.Try to read a little harder. This may take some time, and require you to post a little less quickly.

Why would they be?Remember, you implied that you knew that they were flash-frozen because they were apparently frozen while still alive.Now you grant that they show signs of being chewed on, implying that they were sitting around rotting, not flash-frozen in situ.Since you've withdrawn the only support you provided for your flash-freezing claim, can we assume then that you're withdrawing the claim altogether?

No. He's claiming that nobody has ever claimed that magnetic reversals in the rocks will make your compass flip around, because the magnetic reversals have nothing to do with compasses.Therefore Brown's comments about compass-flipping are a deception at best.