Hydroplates unchallenged young earth explains Tectonics shortcomings!

Third time of asking, simple: pick a chapter in Walt's online book. I (we) will rip it a new 'un.
Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the FloodN.B. : I sort of think that the Walt Brown that's the Socialist candidate for president might be a different guy.

What folks here have been trying to get you to recognize is that Dr Brown's fantasies have left no footprints ANYWHERE AT ALL! None! Nada! Keine! Not any!

That heat isn't quite so big a problem when it's 3.85 billion years ago, and there is no unambiguous evidence that even the earliest life was around to get roasted by it. Rather a different kettle of boiled fish with Ark than Dr Brown's silliness leads to. I beg your pardon, but convection currents are a pretty good driver for plate movement - and subducting plates have been imaged by seismography all around the earth. That's the same technology that finds the oil and gas that heat your house and power your car, y'know. It works.[This message has been edited by Coragyps, 02-06-2004]

I'll bet that is what JM has in mind, too. Why don't you go to Guadelupe Mountains National Park, out west of Carlsbad Caverns, on your next vacation. Look at El Capitan for a while, and hike around on it. Take Walt with you, if you wish. Then propose a way to get a 1600-foot thick reef of shallow-water organisms that require clean water to grow in a year. Or a thousand years. And come back here and tell us about it.And don't forget the Delaware Basin, just south of there. It has 7000+ feet of millimeter-thick layers, alternately windblown sand and organic-rich shale. Give us a catastrophic theory for that, too.[This message has been edited by Coragyps, 02-09-2004]

Yeah, you got us there. Using the current rate of cockroach population growth, you're exactly right. The Flud was in, let's see, carry the 2,..... yep. April 2002. Probably April 22, 2002. You win, simple. It was recent, all right.

Errrmmm.... no, you weren't. You were reciting, probably without any inspection of its basis, creationist assertions based on post-industrial revolution, post-modern medicine human birth rates. These are much higher than pre-industrial, which in turn are much higher than pre-agricultural rates.
This topic has been on this forum before - someone even calculated the entire world population at the supposed time of Moses using these same rates that "proove" a young Earth. And guess what: there weren't enough folks on earth then to even play the roles of the Egyptians.