Walt Brown's super-tectonics

Geez, we've known since the 15th century that the clams and such that are found on top of mountains were not deposited there by a flood or floods. Leonardo da Vinci figured that out by actually looking at them and thinking, a process which Kent Hovind has never considered; he prefers the stuff he makes up.

You know, there's really no point to your making stuff up without investigating and understanding the evidence, some geology, some physics, ...Your idea is a fairy tale that is contradicted by the evidence. The Earth's magnietic field does not arise from a solid bar magnet.

1. Argument by anaalogy is a fallacy. You can explain your hypothesis by an analogy, but an analogy is not evidence.2. Bar magnets are a terrible analogy for the Earth's magnetic field.3. You obviously are making up things that make you comfortable, without any knowledge of the processes involved.

That's interesting ... everyone except you finds that the "magnetics are reversed on each side of the ridges" so it's obvious that the magnetic reversals are related to time. What makes you think that the reversals on each side of the ridges show that they are not related to time? Note that the reversals are symmetrical on each side of the ridge, not opposites (for example see Magnetic striping in the Pacific Northwest).From another post: Ok, that's a claim that Brown makes. What bands run perpendicular to the ridge axis? What does plate tectonics predict, and why?And here's a red flag: when you look at Brown's reference page, he lists "Arthur D. Raff, 'The Magnetism of the Ocean Floor,' Scientific American, October 1961, pp. 146—156" as a reference for that claim. Why is he relying on a 42-year-old reference (that was 34 years old when In the Beginning was first published) in a field in which there have been so many new discoveries and analyses in thse years? The most likely answer is that he's quote-mining and ignoring relevant data that has been published since.

I can't stress this enough ... the mid-ocean ridges do not show "opposite magnetic on the east and west side". They show symmetrical magnetic stripes on the east and west side (or whichever pair of directions are perpendicular to the ridge).

Some very high growth rates have been reported for a few particular types of coral under specific conditions. Such findings are not reasons for assuming that different corals will grow as fast or faster under different conditions. The average growth rate of coral is pretty darned slow, and the slowest growth rate of coral is very slow. See Young-earth "proof" #26: The oldest coral reef is about 4200 years old.Coral must be under water but not very far under water in order to grow, and the water must be clear and not too salty and salty enough and there must not be silt covering the coral or the coral stops growing, and there are probably other things that I have forgotten.Coral is pretty delicate stuff.

Nope. Marine creatures die in water that isn't salty enough, freshwater creatures die in water that's too salty. Perhaps a very few species would survive a global flood, but 99.9999999999999999999% of the marine and freshwater life would be dead (and in a jumbled layer at the bottom of the ocean, which we would have found already if it existed) and 99.99999999995 of the species that live in water would be extinct. As already noted, sediments in the currents block the sunlight that coral needs to live, sediments that settle out of currents kill coral, and all the coral would be dead anyway because it dies when the water gets too deep (as it would in a world-wide flod).All your and Brown's explanations are ad-hoc. They are made up on the spot to satisfy one particular problem without consideration of the broader issues. Please stop making up "explanations" without considering the facts and the implications.

I think you mean freshwater creatures instead of sea creatures? Please provide a reference for this claim, especially a reference for the possibility of this happening for all freshwater creatures in the month or two in which the Flood was said to have developed. Anohter example of ad-hoc reasoning and ludicrous claims. When you want to carve geological features, the Flood is a roaring tempest. When you want to deposit varves, the Flood advances and recedes from that spot hundreds of times a day. When you want water creatures to survive, the Flood is stiller than the smoothest millpond.Sorry, you wouldn't get the entire Earth covered with stratified water with rain for forty days and nights and the "fountains of the deep", whatever they are, roaring away and no exposed land to impede storms and monstrous waves. And, even if you could, there's no way that all creatures are going to adapt to the new environment in the few days it took to flood the earth and then re-adapt to the post-flood-environment in a year or so. Well if Hovind said it there's a 99.9999% chance that it's wrong and a 99% chance that it's a deliberate lie. Sorry, the guy is just a pathological liar; that's how he makes his living.I've heard that aquarium claim before and nobody has ever been able to come up with any evidence that it actually happened. People who actually keep marine aquariums tell a very different story. And, yes, we know all about osmosis; it's the reason why marine organisms die with a very small sudden change in salinity and the reason why freshwater organisms die with a very small sudden change in salinity ("sudden" meaning over a few months or less, as would happen in a global flood). You're still ignoring the fact that the corals would be dead from being under too much water, and the settling sediments would kill any coral that maaged to remain alive somehow.You need clear, very shallow water with no significant sediment in the water or settling out to keep coral alive.

Sorry, that's just plain silly. As is Walt's reference for this claim. How long water molecules spend in the deep Atlantic of today is totally irrelevant to the conditions during a worldwide flood and the eruptions of massive quantities of water that Walt proposes for the Flood and the dancing and twirling Walt proposes for the continents. A classic case of making up a ridiculous idea to save a favorite hypothesis. So, now we've found the source of the aquarium claim. Thanks. The abstract of the reference is at CRSQ Abstracts v21#1. There's a more detailed abstract at MORE CREATIONIST RESEARCH - PART II: BIOLOGICAL RESEARC. Note that they found a difference in salinity change rate made a difference in how long it took the fish to lose the ability to right themselves but the fish always lost the ability to right themselves. Note the great pains they had to take to prevent mixing in the second experiment. An interesting experiment, with unexpected (by me) results, but pretty meaningless in the light of the common experiences of marine aquarium keepers and the unlikelyhood of maintaining any significant stratification during the supposed Flood. Walt gives us no reference for this bizarre claim. See my comments after the first quote; Walt's "No doubt ..." is not justified. I doubt. I doubt big time.

Hovind ignores the processes that remove salt from the oceans, such as the processes that gave rise to the salt deposits you mentioned before. This is a common creationist tactic, ignoring relevant processes that oppose the processes they consider and, sadly, much of their audience falls for it. The oceans are in equilibrium for salt and many other dissolved species; some comes in, the same amount goes out. Analysis of Kent Hovind: Saltier Oceans, Claim CD221, The Sea's Salt.The rest of your post is just more ad-hoc fantasy.

Bill, do you know of a source for this? Been looking for it for years, and can't even find it in the MIT libraries ...

Yes, I have that, and have read it thoroughly through. From the many references to the 1984 paper that I've seen, it appears that there's stuff in the paper that is not in the book.

The hydroplate theory is fantasy. We have demonstrated that with evidence and references; you have done nothing but assert that it's science. It isn't.You know nothing of potassium-argonm dating, or the far-more-widely-used isochron dating and concordia-discordia dating methods. If you wish to claim that all radioisotope dating is wrong, start a thread in the appropriate forum.Snelling does know, and he uses that knowledge to construct invalid tests that do not reflect the capabilities of the method. This is documented at many places, e.g. DR. SNELLING'S "RADIOACTIVE 'DATING' FAILURE". Just like Hovind, he lies and he knows it.Your accusation "the argon potassium dating half life scale is rigged so all rocks will date millions of years old" is a serious canard against thousands of honest and hard working men and women. Retract it (or provide evidence for it, which I know you can't).Sorry to say this, you're an ignorant fool who wants to wallow in ignorance.[This message has been edited by JonF, 01-04-2004]

Irrelevant in a scientific discussion. This thread is not about religious beliefs. If you want to discuss religious beliefs, start a new thread in an appropriate forum.This discussion has wandered pretty far from the topic. I'm surprised the moderators haven't intervened. It's turned into a Gish Gallop wherein whatever makes ludicrous claims without support, we point out the problems with those claims, and whatever ignores the problems and goes on to the next claim.whatever, please go back to Walt Brown's claims. In particular, you have not replied to this message or this message or this message about the magnetic stripes, or this message or this message or this message. And "The Bible says ..." is not appropriate anywhere in this thread.

More claims, no evidence. You don't understand the most basic principles of geology. Rock can and does easily subduct without fracturing, the hydroplate therory for the trench formation is groundless fantasy, water exists deep in the Earth but not in the quantities hypothesized, it is physically impossible for tectonic plates to float on or be supported by water, finding water deep in the Earth does not support your fantasies, the tectonic plate theory does not claim that the plates are moving on liquid rock, there is lots of proof that plates are subducting (e.g. Ocean drilling program).Stop making new and ever-sillier claims and address the problems we have pointed out with your previous claims.