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 “spring”—all the way down to the center of the earth....
If compressive forces are great enough, granite deforms (much like putty) on a global scale....
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.
Mountains formed and overthrusts occurred as the weaker portions of the hydroplates crushed, thickened, and buckled.
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.
I just noticed you're from Edinburgh. I've visited a few times and love that city.
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.
I also am not a geologist, just an amateur. Yes, Walt's theory has all the contradictions within it that you think it does, and you probably haven't even found the all the contradictions. Also, Walt's theory is completely inconsistent with the observations geologists have made over the centuries. Yes, a theory based on just such dodgy thinking is put on the web for everyone to see ... because Walt's a crackpot and very likely believes his fantasies.
Walt's even moderately successful because he appeals to a group of people who claim to believe literally in the Bible (although every one I've ever encountered interprets the Bible without acknowledging that interpretation) and who will swallow any crackpot notion whole if it promises to support their preconceptions. Such as at least one prolific poster on this board.
Trixie, You must realize that the scientists that have a doctorate degree (Ph D degree)in the sciences are afraid to debate the sciences with Walt, Walt is willing to debate the science's(not drag theology into the debate), has had a standing offer to debate: Does science support creation or evolution?, and for 23 years no scientists have shown enough faith they can show the sciences supports evolution, and not creationism, etc...Walts problem with evolutionists is the same problem with Intelligent Design, is that the evolutionists want to drag religion into the sciences, and that is kind of interesting given the theory of evolution is supposed to believe their theory is based on the sciences, etc...If they actually believed their theory is based on the science, they would of debated Walt, they haven't thus Creation wins by default, etc...
P.S. You seem to be saying, but rock will bend, however, this is not what you see in the natural, the deepest wells ever drilled, and oil wells, are finding fractured rock and water, etc...If rock is suppose to bend, to subduct, then why is all the rocks broken up with water filling the voids, etc...Walts theory makes sense, granite mantles rock rubbing rock would fracture, crumble, and the plates wouldn't of subducted under the continental plates, they would of crushed under the continents, etc...
THE HUMAN ASKED OF THE THINGS IN THE WORLD, HOW IS IT YOU ARE HERE! DEATH HAS BROUGHT US HERE.THE WORLD ASKED THE HUMAN,HOW IS IT YOU ARE HERE! WE ARE HERE BY DEATH ALSO.ALL THINGS MUST END NOTHING CAN EVOLVE. SURVIVAL BY DECEPTION.
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!
So you're telling me mutations that cause a different color of fur on a rabbit, first off, 1)change the species and/or 2) Make it so a white rabbit can't or doesn't want to breed with a brown rabbit? And yet, coyotes can breed with common dogs??
So you're telling me mutations that cause a different color of fur on a rabbit, first off, 1)change the species and/or 2) Make it so a white rabbit can't or doesn't want to breed with a brown rabbit?
Well, yes and no. Mutation will evenutally lead to a new species of rabbit. But only under a situation called "reproductive isolation." That's when the population of white rabbits is prevented from mating with the population of brown rabbits for many generations. After generations of that separation, the gene pools are so separate - as a result of accumulating mutation - that those groups would not be able to mate when put together.
And yet, coyotes can breed with common dogs??
They can't always do it. They can't do it with every dog. That's evidence that the populations are on their way to speciation. It's a gradual process.