The predictions of Walt Brown

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 correctand "falsified" if there is evidence against it.How about those?

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.

I think you are absolutely correct in the comparison! While there was a time when abiogenesis was considered to be a possible pure chance occurance by a few it, as far as I know, has been rejected on exactly the grounds that the creationists use. It simply is too unlikely for it to happen by chance alone.Therefore it is mandatory to find mechanisms that overcome the improbability. And bit by bit they are being suggested.What is being asked is the same thing for the HP idea. It has to have mechanisms that can overcome the improbability. I'm not aware that the problem is even understood. In fact, the descriptions of what is supposed to have happen seem to only make it worse and worse. Excellent question! THat is exactly what needs to be looked at. I think however, that it isn't very likely to be available. Instead we'd have to look at the surrounding geology. If there are cores or other reason to think we know what is under the mammoths without drilling directly beside them that should answer it.I'm not clear if Bill's post handled that or not.

Tom, the rings are, I presume you think, in orbit. How fast do they have to be going to stay in LOE(low earth orbit)?You're right though, that they won't reach the service of the earth at 18,000 mph. How do they slow down? What happens when they do?You see, Tom, you are making stuff up (as is Brown, Hovind et all). You (and they) demonstrate almost everytime that you write something that you haven't a clue. You may think that you are presenting arguments in support of a flood. All you actually do is make the idea look sillier and sillier. This is the danger of trying to pretend to know something about an area that needs a bit more than half an hour of study. Especially if that half an hour is spent with a source that is almost as ignorant and deliberately trying to mislead you.

Which is utterly irrelevant.

Actually terminal velocity has something to do with this. I think it was you that suggested that the "hail" would hit things at some very hig speed. Since the surface area of a hailstone (up to some size of say a meter in diamter) is large compared to the weight the "hail" would slow down dramatically before it reached the surface.However, that, as you know, doesn't help Tom at all. We'll have to wait to see if he "gets it".

I haven't read anything recently but is it not possible that the Tunkusga object was a comet? This is just the kind of lump of ice we are taking about. It wouldn't make a film of dew over the surface of the earth but it did announce it's arrival. And someone wants a lot of these to come in all at about the same time?

It was, I think, Cosmo who made up the ice story. Or he went off on a tangent talking about the rings of Saturn.You jumped in to the middle of that talking about terminal velocities.The water (or ice, it doesn't matter too much which) if it is a canopy has only a couple of ways to be "held up" there. Either one of them cooks the ark and it's contents.The science here and the Bible (as interpreted by Walt et al) are in NO WAY in agreement. You are delusional and becoming a bit repetative.The canopy idea (in whatever form) isn't science; it is fantasy without a foundation in reality.ABE
However, it appears that you don't even know the creationist speculations that you are referring to. Perhaps you'd better understand those before jumping in.Some claim that a significant fraction of the flood waters came from a canopy over the earth. This is what I think is being discussed here. It doesn't work out.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-20-2005 17:34 AM

You know nothing about the subject (as you so candidly state). You have no right to any opinion whatsoever.You can leave the Biblical quotes out of this as the discussion is in a science forum. They are not relevant in any way.

Of course, I missed that.He actually doesn't even know the Bible!!!! Or at least is unable to read the vaunted KJV. ROFL indeed.

Off topic here but just a quickie ok? Try to focus on the topic please.The magnetic field of the earth is much, much more complex than just north-south. It may be (but I'm not an expert) complex enough to navigate better than you think. Once close to an island there are effects that spread out of line of sight that could be used.No if you want to discuss that in more detail the propose a topic on it. It isn't an issue here. Gods, I thought my daughter had ADHD.

Give it up! LOL This is sooooo funny.

Magnetic navigation is NOT part of the topic here. Not in anyway you have shown so far.You wild eyed ideas have nothing to do with the facts.(an example of ID)??? Oh, the turtles are the intellgent designers? Very interesting indeed (and makes the most sense of anything you have said).The field is, of course, decreasing. This is because we are using too many fridge magnets. If we continue to waste the magnetism then we will soon run out of it. Then the turtles won't be able to navigate any more and I'll have a whole bunch of note, pictures and old money saving coupons all over the kitchen floor.I don't remember Walt warning us about the overuse of fridge magnets. Did he realize the danger before the experts did?I thought Walts idea was that the magnetic field was pointing toward God because of his amazing magentic personality. Didn't you read that part?

a ring of material is in orbit. The orbital speed is a lot bigger than the speed due to it dropping.From 300 kms up I get under 9,000 kph from dropping it and the orbital speed would be about 40,000.

You seem to be wishing to support a ring.
What holds it up?(this will lead eventually to the reason why the partical can NOT fall liks snowflakes ("like a giant snowstorm of falling chalk like particles") and why it does NOT matter what form it is in you have a huge heat problem.This has already been shown to you at least once. You don't get it yet do you? Where does the water come from and where does it go then? Show the numbers please or all you have is nonsense.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-21-2005 01:57 AM