$50 to anyone who can prove to me Evolution is a lie.

Whatever, if the flood caused the glaciation as you assert, why is there no mention of it in the Bible? It tells us about the flood, it tells us about Job, it tells us about Sodom and Gomorrah.....no glaciation. Anyway, wouldn't the ark have tobogganed down Arrarat at a great rate of knots? When Noah let the animals off the ark, there's no mention of ice or glaciation. Also, the rainbow in the sky was God's promise that he wouldn't wipe out life again. So what's with freezing the backsides off them?!? A joke?? Strewth!!! If you want to believe in the Flood as it's written in the Bible, you can't then cobble on stuff which isn't even there and then state that this proves the validity of the Flood cos if the stuff you've cobbled on falls down, then so does your "proof" for the Flood. If you think the Bible is the "proof" for the Flood, then you have to admit that you don't have the same "proof" for your glaciation. Any chance we could maybe move the goalposts back to where they started? I'll settle for still inside the stadium.

OK, Whatever, I've had a look at the site and after reading this little lot, I gave up as it's all so much marsh gas. Sorry. Why did I reach this conclusion? Because he totally contradicts himself within a single hypothesis. He states that mountain ranges can't be formed by land masses pushing against each other because -

Rocks are strong in compression but weak in tension. Therefore, their stretched outer surfaces should easily fracture. Bent rocks, found all over the earth, often look as if they had the consistency of putty when they were compressed. They must have been squeezed and folded soon after the sediments were laid down, but before they hardened chemically.

Then, in support of his pet hypothesis he states

Rock’s slight elasticity gives it springlike characteristics. The deeper the rock, the more weight above, so the more tightly compressed the springall the way down to the center of the earth....

and also

If compressive forces are great enough, granite deforms (much like putty) on a global scale....

Yet again

Consequently, the compression event at the end of the continental-drift phase easily and continually crushed and thickened each hydroplate for many minutes. Mountains were quickly squeezed up.

And again

Mountains formed and overthrusts occurred as the weaker portions of the hydroplates crushed, thickened, and buckled.

And AGAIN!!!

As mountains buckled up,....

Yet, the first statement I've quoted states that rocks cannot do what he's just said granite does in his hypothesis. Now, if he thinks granite can't behave like this, why oh why does he then include granite behaving like this? It either does or it doesn't. If it does, as he suggests while expounding his theory, then his reasons for throwing out the alternative, accepted theory don't exist. If it doesn't behave like putty, justifying a search for an alternative theory, then he can't include it in his alternative theory.
Now, I'm not a geologist, I don't know very much about rocks, but I do know illogical thought when I see it. And boy, have I just seen it!! Any thoughts about this from the geologists in our midst? Have I misunderstood the alternative theory? Does it really have the contradictions within it that I think it does? I ask this cos I can't believe that a theory could be based on such dodgy thinking and then put on the web for every one to see.

OK, Whatever, you say that we never see bent rock. Then how come Walt says that you DO see it? He even has pictures on his website that claim to show bent rock. Then says it must have ha

OK, Whatever, you say that we never see bent rock. Then how come Walt says that you DO see it? He even has pictures on his website that claim to show bent rock. Then says it must have happened when the rock was a soft sediment. Then he goes on to say that granite can bend!!! In fact he says that granite HAS to bend for his theory to work!!!! Total contradiction.As for "doctorate scientists" scared to debate with him, well this particular doctorate scientist thinks that the internal contradictions in his declarations make them not worth debating. There's nothing there to debate. He has himself stated that the conditions required for his theory to work don't happen!!! Therefore he has disproved his theory all by himself, with no help from the "doctoral scientists". Why should the "doctoral scientists" waste the time trying to destroy his theory when he can and has managed that quite spectacularly on his own?Also, having read the background to this whole "refusal to debate" nonsense, Walt's the one refusing to debate. Whatever, re-read the quotes I put above and see if your incisive thinking can spot the fatal flaws in his theory.I suggest we now take admin's advice and take this to the other thread. See you there. I've copied this post to it.Apologies for the problems with the post, a square bracket snuck in somehow and scuppered me!