Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9174 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,602 Year: 4,859/9,624 Month: 207/427 Week: 17/103 Day: 6/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The predictions of Walt Brown
CK
Member (Idle past 4209 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 1 of 260 (129973)
08-03-2004 8:51 AM


On another thread, Hangdawg13 offered those predictions as "proof" that Walt Brown was right in some respect (the numbering is that used by Hangdawg13):
Prediction 2: Salty water sometimes fills cracks in granite 5-10 miles below the earth's surface, where surface water should not be able to penetrate.
3: The crystalline rock under Gibraltar, the Bosporus and Dardanelles, and the Golden Gate bridge will be found to be eroded into a V-shaped notch. (published in 1995 confirmed in 1988.)
5: The magnetic intensity above black smokers slowly increases because the more recently fractured rock below is cooling.
6: A ten-mile thick granite hydroplate will be found a mile or so under the western Pacific floor.
7: Fossils of land animals, not just shallow water sea creatures, will be found in and near trenches.
8: floor will show it is rising relative to sea level and the center of the earth, because plates are still drifting.
9: When greater precision is achieved in measuring the inner core's rotational speed, it will be found to be declerating.
11: Corings taken anywhere in the bottom of any large lake will not show laminations as thin, parallel, and extensive as the varves of the Green River formation, perhaps the best known of all varve deposits.
12: High concentrations of loess particles will be found in the bottom several hundred feet of most ice cores drilled in Antarctica and Greenland.
13: Muck on Siberian plateaus should have a wide range of thicknesses. The greatest thickness will be in former valleys. Preflood hilltops will have the thinnest layers of muck. Drilling or seismic reflection techniques should confirm this.
14: Rock ice will found to be salty.
15: Bubbles in rock ice will be found to contain less air and much more carbon dioxide than normal.
16: Dirt and organic particles in rock ice will closely resemble those in overlying muck.
17: One should never find marine fossils, layered strata, oil, coal seams, or limestone directly beneath undisturbed rock ice or frozen mammoth carcasses.
18: Blind radiocarbon dating of different parts of the same mammoth will continue to give radiocarbon ages that differ by more than statistical variations would reasonably permit. Contamination by ground water will be most easily seen if the samples came from widely separated parts of the mammoth's body with different water-absorbing characteristics.
19: Soil in "erosion" channels on Mars will contain traces of soluble compounds, such as salt from the subterranean chamber. Soil far from "erosion" channels will not.
20: The number of near-parabolic comets passing perihelion each decade is diminishing slightly. This effect will be seen as better telescopes, more searchers, and higher quality data allow adjustments to be made for our increasing ability to see comets.
21: Some large, near-parabolic comets, as they fall toward the center of the solar system for the first time, will reveal moons acquired as the comets formed. Tidal effects may strip such moons from their comets as they pass the Sun.
24: Excess heavy hydrogen will be found in salty water pockets five or more miles below the earth's surface.
25: Spacecraft landing on a comet will find that comets contain loess and trace amounts of vegetation and bacteria, and about twice the salt concentration of our oceans.
26: the Oort cloud will never be seen, because it doesnot exist.
27: No incoming hyperbolic comet will ever be seen, because comets originated from Earth, not outside the solar system.
28: Comets should have small rocks in their cores.
29: Rocks in asteroids are typical of the Earth's crust.
30: Ceres, the largest asteroid, will be found to have a very Earthlike spin.
31: As has been discovered on the Moon and apparently on Mercury, frost will be found in permanently shadowed craters on Mars. That frost will be rich in heavy hydrogen.
32: Bones or other organic remains that contain enough carbon and are believed by evolutionists to be much older than 70,000 years will be shown to be relatively young in blind radiocarbon tests.
I am offering those as a "menu" rather than a list and propose the following:
1) Hangdawg13 or another person suggests ONE off the "menu" for discussion.
2) Before we get into the details of that claim, evidence must be provided that the prediction PROCEEDS any scientific investigation/experimention that would prove the prediction. If this can not be provided, we label the prediction as "unproven" and then return to 1).
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-03-2004 08:05 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 08-03-2004 11:18 AM CK has replied
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 08-03-2004 11:23 AM CK has replied
 Message 10 by Loudmouth, posted 08-03-2004 12:35 PM CK has not replied
 Message 11 by Coragyps, posted 08-03-2004 1:49 PM CK has not replied
 Message 15 by Hangdawg13, posted 08-03-2004 3:24 PM CK has not replied
 Message 16 by Hangdawg13, posted 08-03-2004 3:25 PM CK has not replied
 Message 26 by Bill Birkeland, posted 08-04-2004 11:36 AM CK has not replied
 Message 48 by neil88, posted 08-27-2004 3:52 PM CK has not replied
 Message 54 by simple, posted 01-19-2005 3:49 AM CK has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 260 (129991)
08-03-2004 11:15 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9006
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 3 of 260 (129992)
08-03-2004 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by CK
08-03-2004 8:51 AM


2) Before we get into the details of that claim, evidence must be provided that the prediction PROCEEDS any scientific investigation/experimention that would prove the prediction. If this can not be provided, we label the prediction as "unproven" and then return to 1).
I suggest that you're wording is wrong there. This type of "prediction" should be labeled as something else. Let's call it "borrowed" which means Walt borrowed it from mainstream geology.
Others categories will be "unproven" if there is, as yet, no evidence either way.
and "undefined" if the statement isn't clear enough to be sure of when it would or would not be correct
and "falsified" if there is evidence against it.
How about those?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CK, posted 08-03-2004 8:51 AM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by CK, posted 08-03-2004 11:21 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4209 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 4 of 260 (129994)
08-03-2004 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by NosyNed
08-03-2004 11:18 AM


Agreed - I am happy to use that system.
Now we just need someone to pick one off the menu!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 08-03-2004 11:18 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 5 of 260 (129995)
08-03-2004 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by CK
08-03-2004 8:51 AM


I would suggest that for any claimed prediction:
1) The reasoning linking it to Brown's hypothesis should be given
(e.g. why is the 70,000 years in prediction 32 important ?)
2) The expections of mainstream science should be accurately described - i.e. if there is uncertainty and controversy that should be given. The underlying reasoning for these expectations should also be given.
3) In cases where it is claimed that the prediction has been confirmed the evidence should be given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CK, posted 08-03-2004 8:51 AM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by CK, posted 08-03-2004 11:27 AM PaulK has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4209 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 6 of 260 (129996)
08-03-2004 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by PaulK
08-03-2004 11:23 AM


Again - I'm happy for that occur.
Now someone pick a bloody number!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 08-03-2004 11:23 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by NosyNed, posted 08-03-2004 11:29 AM CK has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9006
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 7 of 260 (129998)
08-03-2004 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by CK
08-03-2004 11:27 AM


would prefer HandDawg does it
I'd either like to leave it to the Dawg or go from the first down. If we pick it is a bit unfair. I can see some that are just wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by CK, posted 08-03-2004 11:27 AM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 08-03-2004 11:33 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34054
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 8 of 260 (130000)
08-03-2004 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by NosyNed
08-03-2004 11:29 AM


Re: would prefer HandDawg does it
Since DAWG has said that, like many of us, he is still learning, would it be helpful if those that are simply flat wrong were identified first, with reasons given, to act as the first step in reduction?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by NosyNed, posted 08-03-2004 11:29 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by CK, posted 08-03-2004 11:42 AM jar has not replied
 Message 13 by Hangdawg13, posted 08-03-2004 3:10 PM jar has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4209 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 9 of 260 (130002)
08-03-2004 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by jar
08-03-2004 11:33 AM


Re: would prefer HandDawg does it
Let's give Dawg till tomorrow and then it's open house? How does that sound?
From what I've seen Dawg is an exceptionally keen "student" and learner- led education is always the best!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 08-03-2004 11:33 AM jar has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 260 (130011)
08-03-2004 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CK
08-03-2004 8:51 AM


If I may, I would suggest that . . .
18: Blind radiocarbon dating of different parts of the same mammoth will continue to give radiocarbon ages that differ by more than statistical variations would reasonably permit. Contamination by ground water will be most easily seen if the samples came from widely separated parts of the mammoth's body with different water-absorbing characteristics.
Should be thrown out, or at least Hangdawg should be warned that this is based on false data. From CD011.2: Dating of Vollosovitch and Dima Mammoths :
The dates come from different mammoths. The reference cited by Brown and cribbed by Hovind likely refers only to a Fairbanks mammoth which Brown also mentions [Pewe 1975]. The 15,380 and 21,300 RCY dates come from separate mammoths, and it is noted that the 21,300 date is invalid because it comes from a hide soaked in glycerin. It is uncertain what is Brown's source for the 29,500 and 44,000 dates.
Ukraintseva [1993] reviews the Kirgilyakh mammoth, also known as Dima, and cites three dates obtained for it. All are around 40,000 years before present. Dates for deposits surrounding the mammoth are consistent with dates for the mammoth.
I would contend that if this topic is picked then these discrepancies should be dealt with first.
Also (I think PaulK mentioned this), anyone supporting Brown's views should also explain how Brown's predictions differ from mainstream geology. If the same predictions are made in both Brown's theory and mainstream geology then the predictions are useless in showing how one theory is more accurate than another.

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

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 816 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 11 of 260 (130019)
08-03-2004 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CK
08-03-2004 8:51 AM


14: Rock ice will found to be salty.
15: Bubbles in rock ice will be found to contain less air and much more carbon dioxide than normal.
"Rock ice" being, perhaps, like Greenland ice core ice? Or some rap/rock crossover act? I have falsifying data on the former, and no data on the latter.

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 12 by Loudmouth, posted 08-03-2004 2:26 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 260 (130031)
08-03-2004 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Coragyps
08-03-2004 1:49 PM


Characteristics of "Rock Ice" compared to three other types of ice can be found here:
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Some Specifics
From the same site:
"In Alaska and Siberia, scientists84 have found a strange type of massive ice in and under the muck containing mammoth remains. Tolmachoff called it rock ice.85 Rock ice often has a yellow-tinge and contains round or elongated bubbles. Some bubbles are connected, while others, an inch long, are vertically streaked.86 When exposed to the Sun, rock ice, showed a polyhedral, granular structure at the surface, and these granules could usually be easily rubbed off with the finger.87 It looked like compacted hail. " --Brown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Coragyps, posted 08-03-2004 1:49 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 833 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 13 of 260 (130044)
08-03-2004 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by jar
08-03-2004 11:33 AM


Re: would prefer HandDawg does it
would it be helpful if those that are simply flat wrong were identified first, with reasons given, to act as the first step in reduction?
Yep, that would help.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 08-03-2004 11:33 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by CK, posted 08-03-2004 3:13 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4209 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 14 of 260 (130045)
08-03-2004 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Hangdawg13
08-03-2004 3:10 PM


Re: would prefer HandDawg does it
Go for it folks - once we have argreed on what can be eliminated - we can republish the list.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Hangdawg13, posted 08-03-2004 3:10 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 833 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 15 of 260 (130048)
08-03-2004 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CK
08-03-2004 8:51 AM


Some of the most important predictions that have the most obvious ties to the hydroplate theory in my opinion are:
6: A ten-mile thick granite hydroplate will be found a mile or so under the western Pacific floor.
The plate could not have simply disappeared, so it must still be there beneath the sediments and basalt overflows.
17: One should never find marine fossils, layered strata, oil, coal seams, or limestone directly beneath undisturbed rock ice or frozen mammoth carcasses. (Although I think it might be possible for oil to be found beneath since it migrates, though I'm not sure)
If the mammoths were frozen in by the falling muddy hail and muck at the beginning of the flood and remained so near the surface, there should not be any of these features directly below the frozen carcasses.
32: Bones or other organic remains that contain enough carbon and are believed by evolutionists to be much older than 70,000 years will be shown to be relatively young in blind radiocarbon tests.
I've heard claims of this being verified, but they are naturally dismissed as in error or a hoax by most. Most organic material assumed to be older than 70,000 years is never dated by radiocarbon dating because the supply should be depleted. If the hydroplate theory is true, then some organic materials believed older than 70,000 years should give a radiocarbon date.

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 17 by PaulK, posted 08-03-2004 3:47 PM Hangdawg13 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