Walt Brown's super-tectonics

There are a number of questions you have to answer, whatever. You speak of 'clams' in the rocks at the "top" of Mt. Everest. But are they the same clams you find in the beach sand around that area now? If they aren't why is that? How are they related to other "clams" in other places?------------------
Common sense isn't

Odd, I thought I already posted this?Could you tell us what specific species of clams they are? "Found all over the world" --- found today? NO! Just what is the distribution? Are any of today's "clams" mixed in? No! Why not?All I saw at your reference is a single line that explains nothing at all. Care to try again?------------------
Common sense isn't

Perhaps whatever will learn from this example and find a less ridiculous source of "information".What do you say, whatever?

And we know why the mountains are raising upward. You don't!The waters are NOT helping push them up.

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.To the degree that one can follow what Brown is ranting about it is clear that NOTHING would be alive on earth after his galloping continents had finished. Of course, we are here and the evidence is clear that the continents did not gallop. He's wrong. Have you got that yet?

Geez, that sounds a bit like an argument from authority. In this case excusable since one of the "authorities" is me! Maybe there is a point there though. If an authority has been shown to be wrong a number of times it might be a good time to start betting against them. Brown qualifies as a bad bet.------------------
Common sense isn't

I don't want you to take this as being too unkind but I think you should understand how very, very silly this "face" thing looks. It's a bit like a child seeing a "monster" in the clouds on a summer's day and coming in the house to get help from Mommy.I hope you don't actually give any credance at all to the idea put forward at that site. If you do, well, you're hopeless. If not, well, thanks for the interesting little funny.

---

Common sense isn't

Do you happen to know how fast coral grows? Do you know how much coral is there? This is another thing that is easy to say but doesn't jib with the data at hand. Well, that's not the form that they take. They are NOT being sucked down! The movement of the ocean floor is measured. The seismic activity going on NOW from the subduction is measured.whatever, are you actually reading what is being posted in response? Walt Brown's zany ideas are not explaining anything. They are wrong. I'm not either. Some here are. Others have looked at Browns conjectures. They don't stand up. Some of it is obvious to the non-scientist, some of it requires a little more knowledge. This isn't new stuff you know. He is wrong. It already old news.He's depending on you not being scientist or having a clue what is known about the actual real world out there. He is deliberately trying to fool you.

---

Common sense isn't

Define "quickly". Figure out how fast they have to grow to produce what is there in the, at most, few thousand years since Brown's flood (actually there isn't the whole 4300 or so years available but let's use that). Then look up how fast coral actually grows. Disappointment awaits I think (though I don't know the numbers). Is it "physically impossible"?? How do you know? What about speed of deformation. What is, I think, impossible is for the plates to deform quickly without showing it. But they don't show it. They can however do it more slowly (like finger nail growing speed).How would having them be pushed down by some sort of external pressure or fall down into voids make them less crushed? You are aware aren't you that there is not such thing as "sucked". If you do the trapped steam experiment I think you described awhile ago the container is not "sucked" into a collapse. Can you describe what is actually going on?If the plates are "sucked" down, why are mountains pushed up? Those two ideas seem to contradict each other. Can you explain? I don't think Brown does but if you can find something I will be amused by it. Warning, warning to you! You are about to cross over into unsupported territory where you will find Brown doesn't have answers. You'll be on your own, if not right away, pretty soon. And you think the going has been a bit rough so far!Added by edit:
I'll start doing some of this as I read through your post.
From How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Hovind's 'Proofs' (continued) (about 80% down the page)

quote:

---

If one measures the rate of growth of the tips of these branches he will find it to be up to about 100 mm. (about 4 inches) per year in the Florida-Bahama region [Shinn, 1966], and up to 125 mm. per year in Samoa [Mayor, 1924]. This is the fastest growing genus of the reef-forming corals; however, it must be remembered that the open nature of the colony (somewhat like the branches of a tree) prevents this coral from making anything like 100 mm. of solid buildup of reef per year. Wave action and other forces wear and break the branches, whereupon they fall to the base to add their volume to the reef mass.

---

Using this, unreasonable, maxium rate of growth (and not the same as the numbers given in your reference so we need to figure out why the discrepancy) we get 1405 m / .125 m/year gives 11,240 years. Note that this is an unreasonable minimum number.Now read down to and beyond this part:

quote:

---

Thus it is seen that it would be absurd to think that the length of time which was required for the formation of a large reef could be calculated by merely dividing the depth of the reef by the average growth rate of healthy coral colonies. The upward growth of the reef is always much slower than the growth of the colonies. In fact, this phenomenon is self-evident in the observation that most of the numerous coral reef-flats in the Pacific which have been studied during the past 75 or more years are wearing down at about the same rate that they are being built up [Mayor, 1924, p.65].

---

Brown is misleading you. He is either dishonest or stupid. You may choose to be something different.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-01-2004]

You should know that this one is right off a kind of 'list'. A list of silly arguments that have been torn to bits a whole bunch of times. If you insist on using the sources you are then you will look sillier and sillier.For the answer to this one think "salt domes". Find out where salt deposits come from.

---

Common sense isn't

Ok, you're on my ignore list.You're officially hopeless. Carry on with made up fantasies but they aren't proving anything.

---

Common sense isn't

And it will only feel good when you quit.

---

Common sense isn't

No, simple that is not what has happened. Scientists orginially thought a flood had occured but as more data was gathered they realized that it could not have. The 'better explanation' is no accepted geology, physics and biology. They had to give up the idea of the flood because it was wrong.All the couldn't this or maybe that are wild speculations that are demonstrably wrong or don't explain all the facts that we have.

---

Common sense isn't

Could you supply the papers where geologists are getting back to this? Oh dear, someone lied to you. Are you really interested in the truth behind this?In fact a fossil can be used to date strata and strata used to date a fossil. But you have a big thing left out of that oversimplified version of the truth. Care to guess what? Well, so far you seem to be long on bluster and zero on backup. When you start to discuss the evidence behind you claims and the logic supporting them our contempt for your claims might be reduced a little.

---

Common sense isn't

simple, may I suggest that you ask more questions and make fewer statments. It is already becoming apparent that you know pretty well nothing about any of the topics you want to discuss.A big clue is:
[qs-simple]OK thanks for answers. 39 mammoths preserved seems a lot if it were millions of years ago!?[/qs]"millions of years ago"? Do you realize you are out by a factor of 1,000? You insufficiency of knowledge is beginning to show. How interesting! But you're going to have to supply the detailed back up for this. Expecially given the state your credibility is getting to.

---

Common sense isn't