Walt Brown's super-tectonics

..If you had known, ...if wishes were horses then beggars would ride! (& beggarly theories, like p t!) Fairy tales were, some at least, based in some legend, or grain of truth. The documentation you refered to is a tested ancient manuscript collection that has predicted with absolute accuracy every world government that ever was, sometimes hundreds of years before the fact. Also the entire birth, life, death, betrayal price, etc of it's central Character. And hundreds of other things 100% bang on. In it we also find an account of human orgins. Your theories are less than fairy tales, being based on nothing. Nice try.

by other assumptions in the multitude of instances where the results were absurdly off, it was not 'gospel' (which word I used to be indicitive of unerring truth) Really? How long did it take to erode the Niagara to it's present location? What eroded the Grand Canyon, and how long did it take? I could go on, but I'll wait for your unidiotic reply, if you can muster one.

Well there have been accounts of people feeding it to their dogs when coming upon some. I'm not going to argue it. But how would I know for sure, or you? Personally, I'd not be one to try such a thing. I haven't heard of people trying to chow down on it, but the fact remains they were found in a remarkable state of preservation. Why try to deny it? By the way, how exactly, in these cases do we know it was prior to freezing?

It took just over 550 million years to form Niagara falls according to conventional geology. It took a little longer to form the Grand Canyon. Why?CheersJoe Meert

No, by experimental data. Which are few and far between. You'll have to do better to explain away the vast concordinance of unrelated dating methods than the occasional error in procedure. Well, the falls is only 12,000 years old - born yesterday, in geologic terms. So what? I don't recall modern geologic models claiming that all of the Earth's current features are 4 billion years old. The Colorado river, over a period of 6 million years. You can read all about it: No webpage found at provided URL: http://ic.ucsc.edu/~susans/eart3/Lectures/lecture4.htmlThere's nothing idiotic about the facts.

Aauugggggg! JOE! You don't REALLY have HIM for your avatar! Tell me it ain't so, Joe!

All the sources that I find on the web say around 10,000 years - after the last ice age. Why the discrepancy, I wonder?

I think I look good in "Walt"CheersJoe Meert

Because you are thinking solely of the falls rather than the rocks that had to be there for the falls to form in the first place! No rocks, no falls at the end of the Cenozoic ice ages. Technically, we could say that each took 4.5 billion years to form.

I find any assumption that rules out the flood questionable. Assuming things have always happened as they do now. Assuming no worldwide violent upheaval affected the order of things. Or assuming things made themselves, so as that, for example, if a rate of decay is observed now, we try to say that, at that rate, it would take millions of years. When did it start to decay, what affected it that could alter results (water etc). And why recent lava flows were dated old etc. From what I said "so called magnetic reversals p t people speak of are not at all necassarily that" you assume I think all reversals are not real. There was a lot happening that must have affected these things. But to take everything, such as near the mid A ridge, that people would like to consider an old age event of magnetic reversal is something else. Most of what we will find is actuallt evidence of a recent violent worldwide event that is misinterpreted.

Oh, right. That must be why you're the professor, and I'm the schloob.

quote:

---

I find any assumption that rules out the flood questionable.

---

JM: Why? Radiometric dating cannot rule out a flood.

quote:

---

Assuming things have always happened as they do now.

---

JM: Please clarify, I'm afraid if you don't clarify we may get confused.

quote:

---

Assuming no worldwide violent upheaval affected the order of things.

---

JM: Where did you get the idea that geology rules this out?

quote:

---

Or assuming things made themselves, so as that, for example, if a rate of decay is observed now, we try to say that, at that rate, it would take millions of years.

---

JM: Do you have evidence that decay rates change? If so, could it also be possible that rates in the past were slower and therefore our age estimates are too young?

quote:

---

When did it start to decay, what affected it that could alter results (water etc).

---

JM: Do you have specifics or just tossing out general words you heard somewhere?

quote:

---

And why recent lava flows were dated old etc.

---

JM: COuld you give me the specifics? Describe the assumptions made by the researchers in the particular examples you give and discuss the problems that might be inherent in that research.

quote:

---

From what I said "so called magnetic reversals p t people speak of are not at all necassarily that" you assume I think all reversals are not real.

---

JM: SO which ones are real and how did you reach your conclusions? What sort of evidence did you compile to distinguish between the real ones and the 'not real' ones?

quote:

---

There was a lot happening that must have affected these things.

---

JM: Such as? Talking in vagaries does not increase understanding on either side. What 'lot' was happening that affects reversals?

quote:

---

But to take everything, such as near the mid A ridge, that people would like to consider an old age event of magnetic reversal is something else.

---

JM: MOst geologists consider rocks at the ridge to be very young. What is the something else? What evidence do you have for this something else?

quote:

---

Most of what we will find is actuallt evidence of a recent violent worldwide event that is misinterpreted.

---

JM: On what basis is it misinterpreted? What evidence do you bring to the table for your conclusions? It's one thing to criticize science and quite another to think that by criticizing science your default view is correct. Frankly, I've yet to figure out what you think happened in terms of dating and reversals and what evidence you used to reach your conclusions. Are you willing to go into some detail in the arguments?CheersJoe Meert

Good thing it's not a court of law, where you get to not be believed after getting caught lying! Now if the 'hose' of the river was running much much faster after a world flood, and there was more debris etc, could we wittle the time it would take a little? Some would say otherwise based on many things. The pitiful little ribbon of a river down in the canyon, some would say was just a remmnant of a bigger carving force. Not that long ago, either!

You know, you actually have to show that I'm lying, not just say that I am. And if I can show that these dating oddities are the exception and not the rule, can I expect a retraction of your slanderous, dirty, lying insult? Maybe, but what would it matter? What does the age of Niagra Falls have to do with the Age of the Earth? I don't think anybody's saying that Niagra Falls has been around since the beginning of the Earth, creationist or no. Funny, I've seen both the Canyon and the river, and neither of them are what I would describe as "pitiful." Now who's lying?

Got some useful references handy?