Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The predictions of Walt Brown
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 46 of 260 (132624)
08-11-2004 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Bill Birkeland
08-07-2004 11:50 PM


Re: Loess was "muck"
A most excellent post, Mr. Birkeland. I especially enjoyed your last two paragraphs:
I don't "believe" in a specific origin of loess as the matter of its origin isn't a religious or personal matter dependent on faith or personal intuition. Instead, I accept the wind-blown origin of loess as an explanation for its origin based on data collected from field observations and laboratory analyses that show that the lateral distribution, stratigraphy, chemistry, and physical characteristics, i.e. grain-size distributions, of loess are all completely explainable with such an origin.
Accepting the wind-blown origin of loess as fact has nothing to do with personal belief, but rather the honest, scientific evaluation of hard, verifiable physical evidence and field observations along with credible published laboratory data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Bill Birkeland, posted 08-07-2004 11:50 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied

  
Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2532 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 47 of 260 (133445)
08-12-2004 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Hangdawg13
08-04-2004 1:23 PM


Re: Walt Brown's Muck
In from Message 27, Hangdawg13 wrote:
Bill Birkeland wrote:
"The information provided by both Budel (1982) and Ukraintseva
(1993) show that the mummified mammoths occur found in well-
stratified, and often cross-bedded, river sediments that
underlie narrow strips of ancient floodplains exhibiting relict
channels, natural levees, and other fluvial landforms. These
sediments are typically only 10 to 15 m (30 to 45 ft) thick.
These deposits are restricted to narrow valleys cut into
Tertiary or older bedrock."
Hangdawg13 wrote:
"Brown's model does not forbid stratification of the "muck" or
loess material. Some stratification would have occurred where
the soil was not immediately frozen."
I am a little baffled about what either loess has to do with the above part of my post, which Mr. Hangdawg13 has quoted. First, the above quote of mine was part of the post, in which I pointed out the absence of thick "muck" within areas that Brown predicted it should be quite thick. Not only is "muck" absent, but loess also is often absent from the locations, at which mummified mammoths have been found in Siberia. In addition, if Mr. Hangdawg13 would reread the context of the text, quoted from Message 26, he will find that I clearly stated that the "river sediments" but not the loess, are "well-stratified, and often cross-bedded." By definition, i.e. Bates and Jackson (1983), loess consists of well-sorted, often calcareous, unstratified silt that, although weakly coherent, is strong enough to stand in steep or vertical faces. The well-stratified, cross-bedded and cross-laminated silt, sand, and gravel interbedded with clayey and peaty sediments that comprise typically comprise these "river sediments" clearly don't fit the accepted scientifically definition of loess. Since the above quote of mine clearly discussed river sediments, not loess, what Brown's model has to say about loess being stratified is completely meaningless in term of my discussion because river sediments aren't loess,
In case of "muck", Mr. Hangdawg13 needs to specifically define what he is calling "muck" because "muck" is defined in a multitude of ways. For example, Bates and Jackson (1983), the geological definition of "muck", defines it as "dark, decomposed organic matter intermixed with a high percentage of silt". As defined here, the sediments that accumulate on the floodplains of rivers, in lakes and bogs, and in the coastal marshes of lagoons and deltas are all properly called "muck". However, by this definition, loess doesn't qualify as "muck". In Alaska and Siberia, it is also defined as unconsolidated, ice-rich silt. By this definition, "muck" can consist either of slopewash, natural levee, floodbasin, loess, solifluction, lake, marine, or other deposits as long as it consists of silt and has had permafrost developed in it. By this definition, it is totally wrong to call bulk of the "river sediments", which consist of sand and gravel, discussed in the quote from Message 26 as "muck". Also, not all "muck" consists of loess as not all silt is loess. Since the above quote of mine talks about river sediments, which consist largely of clay sand, silty sands, and gravel with very minor amounts of silt, it is quite clear that the text cited from message 26 by Mr. Hangdawg13 also doesn't talk about "muck" that is stratified. Thus, what Brown's model has to say about either "muck" or loess being stratified or not is completely meaningless in term of my discussion because I didn't wrote about sandy river sediments, neither "muck" nor loess, as being stratified in the cited quote.
References cited:
Bates, R. L., and Jackson, J. A., 1983, Dictionary of Geological
Terms. American Geological Institute, Washington, D.C.
Hangdawg13 wrote:
"However, undisturbed mammoth specimens frozen into this muck
should lie directly above, as you said: bedrock."
Again, Mr. Hangdawg13 needs to reread what I said. I say this because the text, which he has quoted in message 27 clearly discusses sandy river sediments instead of "muck", however he defines it. I wrote nothing about " mammoth specimens frozen into this muck" in the text quoted from message 26.
Again, a person has to define what he or she means by the term "muck." A favorite and laughably incorrect definition of "muck" used by many catastrophists. i.e. Deloria (1997), is:
"The muck was simply a frozen conglomerate of trees and plants,
sand and gravel, some volcanic ask, and thousands if not millions
of bits of broken bones representing a wide variety of Late
Pleistocene and modern animals and plants."
As defined above by Deloria (1997), "muck" exists largely in the imagination of both writers as the "muck" found in Alaska consists of ice-rich silt, instead of sand and gravel. [Also, the way the sentence was carelessly written and edited. As written, it refers to "broken bones" as "representing a wide variety of... animals and plants." I would be very interested in seeing the "broken bones", which belong to "Late Pleistocene and modern " plants. :-) :-) ]
Similarly, the deposits of "muck" containing "Trees and animals, layers of peat and mosses, twisted and mangled together like some giant mixer had jumbled them some 10,000 years ago, and then froze them into a solid mass" as described by various catastrophists are only the surficial deposits of landslides, solifluction lobes, debris flows, and so forth. The details about the origin of this Muck" is given in my previous posts. For example, "Arctic Muck", Message 187 of Wyatt's Museum and the shape of Noah's Ark at:
http://EvC Forum: Wyatt's Museum and the shape of Noah's Ark
Given the numerous ways, in which "muck" is used, it would be useful if Hangdawg13 could provide the specific definition of "muck" used by Walt Brown.
References cited:
Deloria, Vine, Jr., 1997, Red Earth, White Lies. Fulcrum
Publishing, Golden Colorado.
Hangdawg13 stated:
"This does not make mention of the Yedomas. Many remains of mammoth
and other animals and plants have been found in Yedomas."
I don't mention Yedomas because the vast majority of mummified mammoths and other Pleistocene mammals weren't found in Yedomas. For example, none of the mummified mammoths and bison found in Alaska weren't found in Yedomas. At this time, I can't find any examples of mummified mammoths having been found in Yedomas. For example, both the Berezovka mammoth, which is mentioned below, and the Kirgilyakh Mammoth, also called "Dima", were found in frozen terrace deposits instead of Yedomas (Budel 1982, Ukraintseva 1993). In fact. mamy of the Siberian mummified mammoths **weren't** even found in even "muck" or loess.
It is true that abundant subfossil bones have been found in Yedomas. However, abundant subfossil bones of mammoths and other Pleistocene animals, individual plant remains, and peat beds have been found in other Pleistocene deposits not associated with Yedomas. Pleistocene fossils are as abundant in other Pleistocene deposits as they are in Yedomas. An excellent example described by Ukraintseva (1993) are river sediments, which contain bone beds composed of thousands of mammoth and other bones, exposed in the banks of the Berelekh River in North-East Siberia. In this case, the largest bone bed in Siberia is associated with river sediments instead of Yedomas. In a regional context, there is nothing unusual also the fossil content of Yedomas.
Budel, J., 1982, Climatic Geomorphology. Princeton University
Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Ukraintseva, V. V., 1993, Vegetation Cover and Environment of
the " Mammoth Epoch" in Siberia. The Mammoth Site of Hot
Springs of South Dakota, 1800 Highway 18-Truck Route, Hot
Springs, SD. 57747-0606, 309 pp.
Hangdawg13 quoted from Brown:
"The ice layer directly under the Berezovka mammoth contained
some hair still attached to his body. Below his right forefoot
was "the end of a very hairy tail ... of a bovine animal,
probably [a] bison."77 Also under the body were "the right
forefoot and left hind foot of a reindeer ... The whole
landslide on the Berezovka [River] was the richest
imaginable storehouse of prehistoric remains."78 In the
surrounding, loamy soil was an antelope skull,79..."
This is a quite interesting quote. It provides a well-known example of one of the vast majority of mummified mammoths and other mammals, which weren't found in Yedomas. This and many other examples of mummified mammoths and mammals contradict the claim that any significant association exists between the remains of mammoth and other animals" and Yedomas.
In addition, the above quote from Brown clearly states that that the mummified mammoth and associated fossils were found in "loamy soil". Loam consists of a mixture of sand, silt, and clay. Since loam isn't pure silt, Brown is also wrong about this mammoth having been found "muck". Also, an examination of the literature would demonstrate that this mammoth certainly wasn't found in "muck" defined as containing "Trees and animals, layers of peat and mosses, twisted and mangled together like some giant mixer had jumbled them some 10,000 years ago, and then froze them into a solid mass". If a person reads what has been published in the literature, these remains are found in river deposits that have nothing to do with any "muck".
Hangdawg13 commented:
"Now this sounds like the results of a massive EXTREMELY icy
landslide."
The only "landslide" associated with the Berezovka mammoth is the very local slumping, which uncovered the Berezovka mammoth, of the cut bank of the river. In this case, the slumping of the cutbank, referred in the above quote as a "landslide", didn't bury the mammoth and other remains, but only exposed a fresh outcrop of terrace sediments containing them. Such "landslides" slumping typically occur where rivers undercut their cut banks regardless of what the climate might be. There is absolutely no relationship between this type of "landslide" any "icy" or "extremely icy" conditions.
Hangdawg13 continued:
"But it does not explain the similar sites found in hills called
Yedomas, nor does it explain the relationship between Yedomas,
loess, and the salty ice,"
1. As discussed above, "similar sites" like the Berezovka mammoth, aren't typically found in Yedomas as Walt Brown either falsely claims or argues. Also, the occurrence of fossil bones isn't restricted to Yedomas. There isn't any relationship between fossil mammoths and Yedomas to be explained as it exists only in Walt Brown's imagination.
2. Again, if a person looks at the distribution of loess in the world, they would find that there are vast areas of loess-covered landscape in China, Europe, the Midwest and along the Mississippi Valley, Argentina, and elsewhere where loess is found and Yedomas aren't found. The vast majority of the areas covered by loess don't show any relationships between the distribution of loess and the occurrence of Yedomas. For example, the best documented ice complex, called "Mamonontovy Khayata" (Mammoth Mountain), which lies near the western shore of the Laptev Sea, is composed entirely of fine sand overlain by peat insted of either loess or "muck". Neither "muck" nor loess is present either within it or within its vicinity. There is simply no special relationship or association between Yedomas, also called "ice complexes", and loess to explain. Walt Brown makes much to do about nothing.
3. Finally, in terms of the "salty ice" of Yedomas, the salt content of the ice found in Yedomas is no different than the salt content of permafrost found elsewhere in northern Siberia. Again, there exists nothing to be explained.
Hangdawg13 continued:
"nor does it explain temperatures of -150 necessary to freeze such
specimens so quickly, nor does it explain the unique characteristics
of "rock ice" found near or at mammoth burial sites."
The condition of these specimens refutes the interpretation by that they were flash frozen at 150 degrees. When these mummified remains of mammoths and other animals have been examined in any detail, paleontologists always have found signs of the carcass having decayed and been scavenged by predators prior to having been frozen. If these carcasses had been fast frozen as advocated by Walt Brown, there wouldn't have been any time for the decay and scavenging to have occurred. The only thing that needs to explain here is why Walt Brown completely overlooks facts and observations, i.e. the decayed and scavenged nature of the Mummified remain, which inconveniently contradict his arguments.
Also, for additional comments on whether these mammoths were fast frozen, a person can read:
1. Talk Origins Feedback for May 2004 at:
TalkOrigins Archive - Feedback for May 2004
2. "A4. Mammoths: Were They QuickFrozen?"
and
3. Woolly Mammoth Remains: Catastrophic Origins?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mammoths.html
Hangdawg13 quoted from Brown:
"Yedomas and Loess. In Siberia, frozen mammoths are frequently
found in strange hills, 30 - 200 feet high, which Russian
geologists call yedomas."
As noted above, the vast majority of frozen / mummified mammoths **don't** occur in Yedomas. For example, none of the frozen / mummified mammoths and other animals found in Alaska **don't** occur in Yedomas. Neither the Berezovka mammoth, which Walt Brown discusses, nor Dima was found in a Yedomas. I would be very interested if Mr. Hangdawg13 could prove this claim by providing a list of the specific frozen / mummified mammoths, which were actually found in a Yedomas and tell me what percentage of the total number of the known frozen / mummified mammoths have been found in Yedomas. If he actually counted the number of frozen / mummified mammoths found in Yedomas, he would find that, if any at all have been found in frozen / mummified mammoths, that the claim that "frozen mammoths are frequently in" Yedomas is pure fiction unsupported by any published facts.
Hangdawg13 quoted from Brown:
"For example, the mammoth cemetery, containing remains of 156
mammoths, was in a yedoma.96 [See line 49, Table 7, page 171.]"
There are two major problems with this statement that make it false. First, all of these 156 mammoths consist entirely of skeletal remains, not mummified mammoths, with only a few shreds of tissue attached. Finally, Walt Brown is wrong about, if not misrepresenting the context of tehse skeletons. The bones of these 156 mammoths weren't found in a yedoma as Walt Brown falsely claims. Rather they occur within river sediments, which are unrelated to any yedoma, exposed in the cut banks of the Berelekh River. This claim is quite interesting as the context of these mammoth remains are clearly documented in one of the citations, Ukraintseva (1993), cited by Walt Brown for this claim. Either he hasn't read Ukraintseva (1993) enough to know that it completely refutes his claims about these bones being found in a yedoma or he has completely misstated what Ukraintseva (1993) wrote about them.
Ukraintseva, V. V., 1993, Vegetation Cover and Environment of
the " Mammoth Epoch" in Siberia. The Mammoth Site of Hot
Springs of South Dakota, 1800 Highway 18-Truck Route, Hot
Springs, SD. 57747-0606, 309 pp.
Hangdawg13 quoted from Brown:
"It is known that these hills were formed under cold, windy
conditions, because they are composed of a powdery,
homogeneous soil, honeycombed with thick veins of ice."
However, as discussed above, the "soil" comprising a yedoma doesn't always consist of either "muck" or loess. Depending on the specific yedoma, its "soil" can consist of any of number of sediments including peat and sand.
Hangdawg13 quoted from Brown:
Sometimes the ice, which several Russian geologists have
concluded was formed simultaneously with the soil, accounts
for 90% of the yedoma's volume.97"
Actually, this has been demonstrated to not be true as discussed by Meyer (2003). Detailed dating and analysis of the ice comprising "Mamonontovy Khayata" (Mammoth Mountain), a yedoma located on the western shore of the Laptev Sea, indicated that ice comprising accumulated during various episodes between 12,000 to 60,000 years ago. Towards the east, the ice comprising yedomas is only as young as 12,000 to 18,000 years old (Meyer 2003).
Reference cited:
Meyer, H., 2003, Late Quaternary climate history of Northern
Siberia - evidence from ground ice. Berichte zur Polar und
Meeresforshung. no. 461. (Alfred Wegner Institute for Polar
and Marine Research (Germany)
Hangdawg13 quoted from Brown:
"Some yedomas contain many broken trees "in the wildest
disorder." 98 The natives call them "wood hills" and the
buried trees "Noah's wood." 99"
There is nothing unusual about this. The melting of the permafrost creates large thermal karst sinkholes in yedomas. Any trees growing within the area that collapses into these sinkholes gets crunched, mangled, and buried by sediment slumping into them. As a result, the bottom of such sinkholes contains sediment full of mangled vegetation. This is preserved as part of the yedoma when the formation of permafrost refills the sinkhole. The syngenetic freezing of the sediment and ground ice within a yedoma at about -10 degrees centigrade results the excellent preservation of any organic material, including plant remains, insect fragments, and mammoths and other bones as noted by Meyer (2003).
Hangdawg13 quoted from Brown:
"Yedoma soil has a high salt and carbonate content,100
So what? This characteristic doesn't contradict conventional ideas about yedomas, ice complexes, being result of ground ice formation in an area of low temperatures and low precipitation over a period of tens of thousands of years as discussed by Meyer (2003). Also, since the ground is permanently, what ground water exists doesn't circulate. Because the low precipitation and temperatures and lack of ground water circulation prevents the leaching of salt blown in from the adjacent Laptev Sea and carbonate within the carbonate-rich sediments that compose yedomas, they have a "high salt and carbonate content".
Hangdawg13 quoted from Brown:
"contains tiny plant remains, and is comparable to muck.101"
Since the syngenetic freezing of the sediment and ground ice within a yedoma at about -10 degrees centigrade results the excellent preservation of any organic material, there is nothing unusual about the preservation of tint plant remains and abundant organic matter within yedomas.
Hangdawg13 quoted from Brown:
The Berezovka mammoth was found in a similar soil.102
They are similar only in that some yedomas consist of river sediments. However, the Berezovka mammoth wasn't found in a yedoma.
...text of loess eliminated...
For the discussion of the loess part of message 27, go to message 44, Loess was "muck", at:
http://EvC Forum: The predictions of Walt Brown
Hangdawg13 asked:
"Why is there an apparent relationship between frozen
mammoths, yedomas, and loess?"
Given that this "apparent relationship" exists only in Walt Brown's imagination, no explanation is needed for it. For example, ice complexes, for which "yedomas" is somewhat of an antiquate term, lack any association with the occurrence of loess deposits. Yedomas are a specific type of permafrost that forms in areas where precipitation was too low to form ice sheets and characterized by extremely cold annual temperatures regardless of whether loess blankets the surface of an area or not. For example, the best documented ice complex, called "Mamonontovy Khayata" (Mammoth Mountain), which lies near the western shore of the Laptev Sea, is composed entirely of fine sand overlain by peat. Neither muck nor loess is present either within it or within its vicinity. Furthermore, loess occurs only as a thick, continuous blanket in an area of southern Siberia that is completely devoid of yedomas and far south of where they occur. There is no consistent association between the presence of loess and occurrence of yedomas (ice complexes).
Yours,
Bill Birkeland

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Hangdawg13, posted 08-04-2004 1:23 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
neil88
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 260 (137424)
08-27-2004 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CK
08-03-2004 8:51 AM


Prediction 32
Prediction 32. As far as I understand, Radiocarbon dating cannot be used on material older than about 45,000 years. 70,000 years is outside the range of the C14 method due to its relatively short half-life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CK, posted 08-03-2004 8:51 AM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 08-27-2004 4:55 PM neil88 has not replied
 Message 50 by TrueCreation, posted 08-27-2004 9:33 PM neil88 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 49 of 260 (137447)
08-27-2004 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by neil88
08-27-2004 3:52 PM


Re: Prediction 32
Quite true, but the game on this topic is to get a creationist to pick one from the list and suggest a falsification test, and then refute it.
Note that doing a "blind" test on a 70,000 year old specimen would return a result in the 45,000 to 50,000 year old minimum age range and Brown goes "AHA!! not 70,000! the method is false!" and break his arm patting himself on the back.
welcome to the fray.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by neil88, posted 08-27-2004 3:52 PM neil88 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by TrueCreation, posted 08-27-2004 9:40 PM RAZD has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 260 (137521)
08-27-2004 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by neil88
08-27-2004 3:52 PM


Re: Prediction 32
quote:
Prediction 32. As far as I understand, Radiocarbon dating cannot be used on material older than about 45,000 years. 70,000 years is outside the range of the C14 method due to its relatively short half-life.
--Not necessarily, you can measure much further back than 45k and even further than 70k. However, the issue is that with increasing age the method becomes increasingly inaccurate as an inherent protential. With age, the sample is more prone to contamination and as the total quantity of parent isotope diminishes it becomes increasingly more probable that contamination has taken place. Of course that is only half of the nutshell explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by neil88, posted 08-27-2004 3:52 PM neil88 has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 260 (137522)
08-27-2004 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by RAZD
08-27-2004 4:55 PM


Re: Prediction 32
I provided a pretty good potentially falsifiable argument which tested the validity (by consideration of relative plausibility between competing "young earth" and uniformitarian hypotheses) of a catastrophic allochthonous vs. an in situ growth model for the Eocene fossil forests in the specimen ridge/lamar river formation of Yellowstone. Unfortunately I cannot find the thread, I believe it has been deleted from evcforum archives. But I do think I have copies of my discussions with Dr. Richard Yuretich and William Fritz (Geologists who have performed several studies on the lithology and biogeography (phytological) of the formation) which espoused an identical critique of the mainstream hypothesis--or at least the framework thereof. I doubt that it would be applicable to Brown's theory, but anyways..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 08-27-2004 4:55 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 08-28-2004 12:21 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 52 of 260 (137564)
08-28-2004 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by TrueCreation
08-27-2004 9:40 PM


Re: Prediction 32
check the spreadsheet listing that moose updates
EvC Forum: All Topic database available
you can sort it and filter it to cut down the "chatter in the datter"

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by TrueCreation, posted 08-27-2004 9:40 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by TrueCreation, posted 08-28-2004 12:50 AM RAZD has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 260 (137572)
08-28-2004 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by RAZD
08-28-2004 12:21 AM


Re: Prediction 32
Thanks RAZD, I tried looking it up and found out that I don't have the needed software, oh well

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 08-28-2004 12:21 AM RAZD has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 260 (178453)
01-19-2005 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by CK
08-03-2004 8:51 AM


another prediction
Well It seems creationists haven't yet picked too many of these the way things are set up. I have a Walt Brown type concern, but it may not fit well, on this thread. Walty says that the water under the earth was under pressure. He apparently thinks this has some type of 'cooling effect' which would more or less in his mind balance the heat involved as the continents split in the Atlantic, and slid away. Is he that off the beam, that he is dead wrong on that point? In other words, as the continents slid on the water underneath, it reduced the friction, and also this cooling from the pressurized water helped.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CK, posted 08-03-2004 8:51 AM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by JonF, posted 01-19-2005 8:39 AM simple has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 55 of 260 (178486)
01-19-2005 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by simple
01-19-2005 3:49 AM


Re: another prediction
Yeah, he's pretty much totally off the beam, he's dead wrong. He's got some fascinating blind spots. He knows his thermodynamics and heat transfer equations, he just manages somehow to ignore them when evaluating his own ideas.
Water under pressure isn't wildly different from water not under pressure. Walt's "water under the Earth" (which we are pretty sure does not exist and never existed and couldn't do what he claims it did even if it did exist ... rocks don't float) would be at the same temperature as the surrounding rocks. As heat was generated by continents dancing and swooping like ice skaters (and raising tsunamis that make the recent one look like a slight ripple in a glass of water), the water would conduct the heat away to a certain extent ... but to where? The temperature of the Earth would rise (the only way to get heat off the Earth is radiation to space, which is slow) until everything that wasn't already killed by tsunamis and earthquakes and volcanism and superheated steam (from the pressurized and heated water escaping) would be just plain fried on the griddle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by simple, posted 01-19-2005 3:49 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by simple, posted 01-19-2005 3:28 PM JonF has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 260 (178622)
01-19-2005 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by JonF
01-19-2005 8:39 AM


walt quoted
I notice you said "are pretty sure does not exist" leaves some wiggle room. Walts words on the issue, after some impressive looking equations, are these. "the cooling from the compressed water's expansiopn as it escaped to the earth's surface was about equal to the conversion of the compressed energy to the kinetic energy and then to heat. Therefore no net temperature change resulted from the stored compressed energy."
Now, even if a canopy of some kind wouldn't have much water in it on a worldwide scale, say even if it added only an inch of water to the flood, could it not under extreme conditions have been affected in such a way as to help alter the balance of heat coming in or leaving the earth. If not, or not much, even with the volcanic dust, etc, stirred up, maybe something helped in that area somewhat at the time. Also, if, on a small scale, I put a car cigarette lighter, still hot on the floor, then aim a super blast of wind right at it, maybe even add some content of moisture to the wind flow, it would cool off quicker! There was a lot of moisture, and a mighty wind around that time, could they help cool things down? Another thought, is, what if there was a lot more water in the flood than they think, I mean, say, another mile high of it? What if much of the water was somehow blown, or sucked, or something off the planet, in a cosmic event? Would the extra water, now no longer here, affect all formulas?
In other words, if there are things that are conceivable that could have happened, how can we rule it out? Like if we want to see how a distant star pulses, we conceive of what it could be made of to account for that effect. Now, if it were neutrinos, or something, we might then say, why it would have, or could have such an effect. So why not conceive of what could have happened in the flood, likewise?
After all we can't predict earthquakes, who knows, a new look might improve our flawed understanding of real plate action, so we could predict them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by JonF, posted 01-19-2005 8:39 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Loudmouth, posted 01-19-2005 4:14 PM simple has replied
 Message 58 by JonF, posted 01-19-2005 9:27 PM simple has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 260 (178636)
01-19-2005 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by simple
01-19-2005 3:28 PM


Re: walt quoted
quote:
notice you said "are pretty sure does not exist" leaves some wiggle room. Walts words on the issue, after some impressive looking equations, are these. "the cooling from the compressed water's expansiopn as it escaped to the earth's surface was about equal to the conversion of the compressed energy to the kinetic energy and then to heat. Therefore no net temperature change resulted from the stored compressed energy."
Ever seen a geyser? That water is under pressure but it doesn't seem to cool it down much.
If you still think that Walt is right, could you please post those equations?
quote:
Now, even if a canopy of some kind wouldn't have much water in it on a worldwide scale, say even if it added only an inch of water to the flood, could it not under extreme conditions have been affected in such a way as to help alter the balance of heat coming in or leaving the earth.
What canopy? Where is the evidence that a canopy ever existed? How could a solid wall of water be suspended in the air without increasing the barometric pressure, and consequently the global temperature, to levels that would not kill all life on earth?
quote:
Also, if, on a small scale, I put a car cigarette lighter, still hot on the floor, then aim a super blast of wind right at it, maybe even add some content of moisture to the wind flow, it would cool off quicker!
Think about the volumes involved. You have to use a volume of air that is drastically larger than the cigarette lighter. In comparison, there is not enough atmosphere on earth to replicate your experiment. Also, that air is drastically heated, especially those first few blows. You also have the problem of all that moisture increasing the barometric pressure, and consequently a major increase in temperature.
quote:
Another thought, is, what if there was a lot more water in the flood than they think, I mean, say, another mile high of it? What if much of the water was somehow blown, or sucked, or something off the planet, in a cosmic event?
Where is it? It should visible somewhere. We should certainly find a lot of water on the moon if this were so.
quote:
After all we can't predict earthquakes, who knows, a new look might improve our flawed understanding of real plate action, so we could predict them?
How does hydroplate theory improve earthquake prediction? Where was Walt Brown before the tsunami's hit Asia? Did he know this was going to happen but didn't feel like saying anything?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by simple, posted 01-19-2005 3:28 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by simple, posted 01-20-2005 12:19 AM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 126 by simple, posted 01-20-2005 11:14 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 58 of 260 (178764)
01-19-2005 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by simple
01-19-2005 3:28 PM


Re: walt quoted
I notice you said "are pretty sure does not exist" leaves some wiggle room.
Not really. It's about the same as saying "pretty sure that the sun will appear tomorrow".
Now, even if a canopy of some kind wouldn't have much water in it on a worldwide scale, say even if it added only an inch of water to the flood, could it not under extreme conditions have been affected in such a way as to help alter the balance of heat coming in or leaving the earth
It could have an effect. It could slow the transfer of heat, making the Earth even hotter than it would be withour the canopy.
With or without a canopy, with or without anything you can think of, the only way to transfer heat from the Earth is by radiation (or the removal of much of the mass of the Earth, which wouldn't decrease the temperature at all).
Also, if, on a small scale, I put a car cigarette lighter, still hot on the floor, then aim a super blast of wind right at it, maybe even add some content of moisture to the wind flow, it would cool off quicker! There was a lot of moisture, and a mighty wind around that time, could they help cool things down?
Nope. Your super blast of wind moves the heat around some, but the overall efect is the same. There's no wind outside the atmosphere, so the Earth cannot be cooled by such a mechanism. Only radiation cools the Earth.
Another thought, is, what if there was a lot more water in the flood than they think, I mean, say, another mile high of it? What if much of the water was somehow blown, or sucked, or something off the planet, in a cosmic event? Would the extra water, now no longer here, affect all formulas?
It might (although an extra mile of water is teeny-weeny compared to the mantle, and pretty small compared to the amount of water needed for a global flood). However, there's no evidence of such water and no known mechanism by which that could possibly appear or disappear. On the contrary, there's lots of reeasons to beleive thtat such a thing could never happen. That is, it's a fairy tale at best.
In other words, if there are things that are conceivable that could have happened, how can we rule it out?
That's the crux of the matter. We can't absoluteluy rule such things out (although none of the things that you proposed are conceivable, they're just pipe dreams); science doesn't rule anything out, ever. It's always at least theoretically possible that any scientific conclusion is wrong and may have to be revised when new evidence turns up. That's one of the strengths of science.
But we don't throw up our hands and give up. We go with the best explanation we have that fits all the available evidence. and it works pretty well.
As far as a global flood is concerned, the best explanation we have that fits all the available evidence is that there was never a global flood and the Biblical account is an exaggerated legend borrowed from a pervious culture. It's an important and worthwile morality story, but it's not history.
If and when contradictory evidence surfaces, we'll reconsider. But there's a big pile of evidence so far that is totally incompatible with a global flood. Creationist geologists realized this in the late 1700's and early 1899's, before Darwin ever sstarted on his theory. Don't bet on a global flood fitting all the available evidence, now or ever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by simple, posted 01-19-2005 3:28 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by simple, posted 01-20-2005 12:37 AM JonF has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 260 (178793)
01-20-2005 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Loudmouth
01-19-2005 4:14 PM


Lord of the Rings
quote:
How does hydroplate theory improve earthquake prediction?
Well, just that, since the current old ages ideas are falling flat as the universe is now said to be, maybe it's time to get to the truth, whether walty was warm on this or not.
quote:
Where is it? It should visible somewhere
Maybe a quantum fluctuation or wormhole, or something we are not familiar with yet, or dimension portal? Although it does seem there may have been or be, water on mars, etc. basically, we don't know.
quote:
What canopy? Where is the evidence that a canopy ever existed?
Well, if there was one, there ain't no more, so lets see if anything on earth could be a remnant of one. I was wondering today, actually, why would it have to be a canopy, and not say rings? We look at Saturn for most unusual properties to the rings there, apparently under study for possible superconductivity properties!
"Saturn's rings are composed primarily of particles of water ice. Voyager photos of the rings show a reddish tinge, indicating that iron oxide or a carbon-rich material may also be present
Yahoo"
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Conclusion
Well in dispersing radiation out to space there is a balance here, and it can be altered, maybe it was once. In the rings on Saturn we seem to have water ice particles! Now also maybe some "carbon rich" material. Why I even look at it is not for the water in the flood, but for potential effects such a ring may have had on radiation, and, what if earth's ring, say, was stuffed with some carbon rich, or even some C02 type material? Isn't that what limestone can come from, like in caves where it can change back and forth under certain conditions? This might then take away for a need for some poor sealife to have had to slowly make the stuff for millions of years! Also, as the ring 'broke up' could it not have had a cooling effect. After all, one plan on the books (too expensive & risky) is to send up giant 'reflectors' in orbit, covering 1 % of sky, that would balance out the effect (heating) of all the greenhouse emmisions and such! A nice ring coming apart might have helped with some of this type
effect!
quote:
Ever seen a geyser? That water is under pressure but it doesn't seem to cool it down much
Only in Yellowstone. There, it came from the pocket underneath that is hot, and not far below, so I wonder if that is a reasonable picture for a global scale, where there is miles of the stuff coming up quite a distance? Also, I have heard the theories of the center of the erth called into some degree of question. Not just the 'hollow earth' folks. (These folks are obviously frowned on by the 'flat universe society' folks)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Loudmouth, posted 01-19-2005 4:14 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 260 (178798)
01-20-2005 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by JonF
01-19-2005 9:27 PM


making a moon dissapear
quote:
If and when contradictory evidence surfaces, we'll reconsider
What about contradictory interpretations of the evidence?
quote:
But we don't throw up our hands and give up. We go with the best explanation we have that fits all the available evidence. and it works pretty well.
I think it can work even better if we fit the evidence to the 'best explanation' of the flood God gave us.
quote:
It might (although an extra mile of water is teeny-weeny compared to the mantle, and pretty small compared to the amount of water needed for a global flood).
Do you understand I was talking about an extra mile high worldwide, on top of the flood that covered the highest mountains?
quote:
Nope. Your super blast of wind moves the heat around some, but the overall efect is the same. There's no wind outside the atmosphere,
What about solar wind? Besides, If the source of the wind was extra terrestial, We would not see it any more. Hey, wild idea, how about a dissinterating planetary ring, falling on earth, could not that generate some wind?! (directly or in effect)
quote:
I notice you said "are pretty sure does not exist" leaves some wiggle room.
Not really. It's about the same as saying "pretty sure that the sun will appear tomorrow
Wasn't there a fairly new theory where (I don't buy it for a minute) they say there were two moons here, or something one only is left. I think they needed to try to come up with a plausible sounding way to explain how our moon just doesn't fit into their older theories. Anyhew, I figure if you guys can dissappear a moon, I can dissapear a canopy or some rings!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by JonF, posted 01-19-2005 9:27 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by jar, posted 01-20-2005 12:54 AM simple has replied
 Message 65 by JonF, posted 01-20-2005 8:56 AM simple has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024