Walt Brown's super-tectonics

Sorry I took it that way, but you weren't very clear.And your criticism is groundless. Dating is a technique, not magic. Things don't date themselves. If you set up the process wrong, you get tainted results. Just like any other scientific test.It's hardly dating's fault if the occasional grad student f*cks it up. I mean, occasionally surgery goes wrong, but you don't see people abandoning medicine altogether... Nobody said Niagra was 4.5 billion years old. Now who's lying?And we made it pretty clear what we were talking about: The falls are 12,000 years old. The rocks that make up the falls have been there for 550 million years. The material that makes up the rocks is as old as all the other material on Earth: 4.5 billion.You need to work on your reading comprehension if you're going to hang around on this board.

I see no point in lying about something so easily verified: magnetic surveys have been run since the 50's, and Boy Scouts' compass needles don't flip around wildly as they go on hikes. QED.

Put your cookies, on a lower shelf, preacher. Am I supposed to be dazzled that a mammal when it was alive would bleed? Or are you trying to whizz a 'we're smarter than thou' comment by?

quote:

---

Do you have evidence it does not? As far as coming up with an evidenceless fantasy as to whether it might be older or younger, it don't much matter, as both would be nothingness without knowing! To determine something fairly accurate, it seems to me, you would need to know the conditions that existed pre flood, as well as in flood, not just the part of the equation called 'post flood' otherwise our answer will be skewed.

---

Crashfrog has already listed one fine example of why we have confidence in the constancy of decay rates. We do know what the decay rates were before the date that creationists assign to the flood. We also have confidence in the mass of a proton, mass of a neutron, speed of light, gravity constants, and numerous other constants in the natural world that factor into our understanding of the universe. Unlike organisms, constants in physics don't change in the same frame of reference (some constants, I think, can change between two frames of reference, Relativistic effects). So, it IS up to you to disprove how physical constants have changed over time, when constancy is already evident in the past and in the present.

quote:

---

To simply measure how something erodes, or decays etc now, without a good understanding is not acceptable. I could take someone to Canada's Trans Canada Hwy (for example)which goes from Atlantic to Pacific, take them to Nova Scotia near where it begins somewhere, at a place where the road happens to be heading North for several miles, and have them speculate whicere it will come out. They could assume that they have been going north for miles, observably, therefore they would be maybe in Moscow in a few days! Unless they have other factors in the equation, their answer is bound to be wrong!

---

The mechanism IS well understood. Your example does not even come close to describing the amount of knowledge that we have about radioactive decay. Your analogy should be "If we know down speed, direction (in a straight line, no curves), and where the car ends up, we can calculate where the car began." There are no "curves in the road" with radioactive decay (on a log scale). It is a constant and MEASUREABLE phenomenon.Such things as nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs function because of the knowledge we have, not because of a lack of it. If decay rates were not constant, reactors would either quit or explode suddenly. This doesn't happen. So is it a fairytale faith that keeps reactors from blowing up or is it solid knowledge? If we can observe the decay rates thousands of years ago via supernovae, and those rates are the same then as today, why should we assume that they are not constant? If experiment after experiment kicks out the same numbers, why should we assume that things have changed. What I am trying to say is that there is NO CURRENT EVIDENCE that decay rates have changed, and tons of counter-evidence for change in decay rates. The only fairy tale here is that merely believing in something without evidence causes this effect to happen in reality.

I'm saying that you can tell the difference between a wound inflicted before a flash freeze and one inflicted after, because before the freeze, blood seeps out of the wound. Blood doesn't seep out when it's frozen.It doesn't matter how fast the freeze is - blood will seep out of a wound immediately if it's not frozen.Try to read a little harder. This may take some time, and require you to post a little less quickly.

So then, are you saying some boy scouts went on an oceanic ridge hike, and Walt's out to lunch because these boys told you their wet compass did not 'flip around wildly '? Or are you just trying to show disdain in a manner that would sound like you're in on something that is quite superior! ('As far as the Heavens are above the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways' This time it was God who seems to share your abilities!)

Ok so some were wounded before being flash frozen-granted!

Why would they be?Remember, you implied that you knew that they were flash-frozen because they were apparently frozen while still alive.Now you grant that they show signs of being chewed on, implying that they were sitting around rotting, not flash-frozen in situ.Since you've withdrawn the only support you provided for your flash-freezing claim, can we assume then that you're withdrawing the claim altogether?

If the accurate date is when they were violently buried, fine! --Of course it 'is expected' that fossils are the 'same age'. Question is what is that age!

Nice to have you around Jim, another quality post. I feel like a concert goer clammoring for an encore, but do you think it might be useful to post the Hawaiin Island Chain as an example corroborated dating? It would seem to fit in well with the current discussion. Geology isn't my strong point and I don't feel a cut and paste is appropriate with you here. Just a thought.PS- love the avatar.

No. He's claiming that nobody has ever claimed that magnetic reversals in the rocks will make your compass flip around, because the magnetic reversals have nothing to do with compasses.Therefore Brown's comments about compass-flipping are a deception at best.

I'm saying Walt's out to lunch for the reasons given above. Answers in Genesis is saying Walt's out to lunch as is the Institute for Creation Research. What evidence do you have that Walt is correct?CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

If the accurate date is when they were violently buried, fine! --Of course it 'is expected' that fossils are the 'same age'. Question is what is that age!

---

Using the tools of science, how should we measure that age then. Remeber, using the tools of science, not quoting a book written by an ancient culture.

quote:

---

but do you think it might be useful to post the Hawaiin Island Chain as an example corroborated dating? It would seem to fit in well with the current discussion. Geology isn't my strong point and I don't feel a cut and paste is appropriate with you here. Just a thought.
PS- love the avatar.

---

JM: By all means. I don't think anyone objects to accurate cut-and-paste material.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

No. He's claiming that nobody has ever claimed that magnetic reversals in the rocks will make your compass flip around, because the magnetic reversals have nothing to do with compasses.

​

Therefore Brown's comments about compass-flipping are a deception at best.

---

Hold a compass next to lodestone and it will deflect. But admitting this would really shoot a hole in Walt's theory. This means we could measure the direction of earths magnetic field when the lodestone solidified. Bad news for Walt.