Hydroplates unchallenged young earth explains Tectonics shortcomings!

quote:

---

ha. the radiometric thing I've already said before is less dependable by some estimates than Jeanne Dixon's successful predictions.

---

JM: ipse dixit. Please provide detailed evidence and explain in your own words why the scientific basis for radiometric dating is wrong. Try to avoid copying unsupported documentation from Walt (if possible). Do you ever think on your own?CheersJoe Meert

You asked I didn't know, I raised coincidence, after all if fossils happen to get sorted a certain way, and it coinsides with your theory, you seem to bite.

quote:

---

I don't plan to be here long

---

JM: Duh! We all knew that the minute you started your cut-and-paste blitzkrieg. It happens everytime we start asking for details. First we get a bit of whining (and no details) and then eventually they disappear without ever scientifically defending their position. Will you be able to last longer than a month? We'll see how long you can dodge questions about details and pretend you are not copying from Walt.

quote:

---

but show me how much of of your knowledge is not built on the assumptions of great age, and there is probably not much left

---

JM: As soon as you show me with scientific evidence that you have support that the assumptions are wrong, perhaps you'll make headway. My prediction is that, like most creationists, you'll wimp out and leave by (at the latest) the end of the month. We'll never get anything more than handwave dismissals. Do you have any scientific details? Are you able to develop and present your own ideas in a coherent fashion. I'm betting no, I'm hoping you'll stick around longer than the 1/2 life of most (~ 1 month).CheersJoe Meert

That's how it gets to be a good theory. Lots and lots of things fit the predictions of the idea. And, of course, none of them contradict it.Walt's idea predicts what exactly? And, of course, much of what we know contradicts it.Even if any one of the correct results is a coincidence (and that is not impossible) if you get enough of them coincidences start to be a very unlikely explanation.Are you going to suggest that the fossil sorting is also a coincidence? That is beyond 'unlikely'.

---

Common sense isn't

The scientific basis for the dating, in as much as seeing how something decays now is fine. My concern would be to extrapilate a present decay into the distant past, as if all things were the same as we now see. So to say it's presently decaying at a certain rate fine. Also on different places, I have heard about errors in the results. So I'm not going to base my thoughts, beliefs, or life on any dates thank you very much.

Off topic here. There are a number of threads for dating.

He has a chart where his theory scores about perfect, and the pt theory is frought with problems. I glanced over some of his predictions, you're probably more aware of them. Has any failed? You seem to have a concern in this area.

guess I should have kept up with the Jones, and put hyperlinks leading to cut and pasted stuff instead. I think it depends more on the pro evolution moderators

You should be refering to his chart and discussing what it means. Then bring up where PT fails.Then discuss the exact predictions that he makes.

I thought Walts said the Pacific seamounts were not scraped off, I thought seamounts are formed from under basalt uprising, the Pacific Plates must not be moving, maybe the Hawaian Islands were formed because of fractures, unlike the galloping Atlantic Plates, probably explains all the volcanoes in the Pacific, why the seamounts are still there, interestingly their eroded tops, supporting the biblical flood, being over 1/2 mile below the wave base, etc...

Seamounts: In what way do they support the flood? A bit of detail please.Unfortunatly the pacific is moving. So it seems you have that wrong.What sort of "fractures" are you talking about?

Ned, I haven't really read Walts book, browse his site a bit, what evidence do you have that the Pacific Plate is moving, does Walt think the plate is moving, I'm just saying without knowing exactly what Walt thinks, is that if the seamounts are caused by basalt rising up from the inner earth, if the Pacific plates are moving, wouldn't they be scraped off, is there seamounts in the Atlantic Ocean, etc...P.S. I look forward to your response, why are the seamounts not scraped off the Pacific Oceans floor if the plates are moving, if you have proof that Walt says they are moving, or that tectonic plate theory believes so, please quote your sources, etc...The seamounts show they were once above the surface of the waters, either the oceans sank, the waters rose, or both, etc... Rachael Carson The Sea Around Us, was one of the first scientists to write about the pacific seamounts, etc...

If you are seriously interested in learning about the evidence and indications of the pt theory may I direct you to two websites which seem to be up to date? USGSreading through the above, the author leads you to this link for further information.
www.mantleplumes.orgPerhaps you could read through and gain some more knowledge. (more ammunition you might say. )[This message has been edited by DBlevins, 02-05-2004]

quote:

---

if the Pacific plates are moving, wouldn't they be scraped off, is there seamounts in the Atlantic Ocean, etc...

---

JM: Why would they be scraped off if they are on top of the plate? The key is what happens to them as the approach a trench because in the middle of the ocean they will buoyantly subside. Yes, there are seamounts in the Atlantic. In more detail, when seamounts encounter a trench, they are accreted to the margin as they are difficult to subduct.

quote:

---

or that tectonic plate theory believes so, please quote your sources, etc

---

JM: Joe Meert, personal notes GLY 1000, GLY 2010 and also almost any introductory geology text. You might also look through the last 2-3 years of the journal Geology and also "Mantle Convection in the Earth and Planets by Schubert et al. Now, how about you supply us with some peer-reviewed scientific literature for your position.[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 02-05-2004]

Good then there is one thing he has right. The seamounts are casued by magma coming from underneath. But not the inner earth of course.You are actually going on and supporting Walt and you don't even know what he is saying? And on top of that you don't know what plate tectonics is saying?What on earth makes you think you have any right to an opinion?Why do you think anything would scape them off?(though in fact I am sitting on land that was scaped off the floor of the pacific. )