Walt Brown's super-tectonics

Do you really think that magnetic reversals only occur out in the Mid-Atlantic? I have no idea what caused Walt to go out to lunch, but my challenge of a day or two ago stands: pick a chapter from his website book, and I'll show you five egregious examples of Bos tauri excrement therein.

I was not implying anything was 'sitting around rotting' (except some theories) All I said is that 'some' could have been injured (bleeding, 'bitten') prior to freezing. Why not? How many were eating before the flood? Or hunting, or were washed in by water, or hurt by debris, or fell, or bit their neighbor for a higher place to get away from the rising water, or etc.?
As far as flash freezing, I don't know what extent was regular freezing, drowning, flash, or etc. Some did seem fairly flash though, apparently.

Did I say that? I think my point was more that some of these straw graspers are apparently inclined to interpret things how they like. As in the early p t interpetations Walt hit on. In other words, they did not, in many cases, seem to know a reversal from an anomaly, let alone an ancient world multi magnetic reversal from a rubarb pie.

quote:

---

As in the early p t interpetations Walt hit on. In other words, they did not, in many cases, seem to know a reversal from an anomaly, let alone an ancient world multi magnetic reversal from a rubarb pie

---

JM: That's patently false. The people doing magnetic measurements were well aware of how the machinery worked and that they were measuring field intensities over the oceanic crust. I refer you to any of the many publications on marine magnetic anomalies. LAter, the pioneers like Vine and Mathews and Opdyke put two and two together and realized that these magnetic stripes actually represented reversal signatures on the ocean floor. It's ok to disagree with the science if you have good evidence, but it is positively ludicrous to lie about the history of the field and invent stories that are not true.Here's an image of an anomaly (note the axis is written in terms of intensity of the field). This is how marine magnetic anomalies were presented. The interpretation of what they represented came from correlation to land and marine sectionsCHeersJoe Meert[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 02-03-2004] [Fixed size of image to fit. --Admin][This message has been edited by Percy, 02-03-2004]

Caught? Can you tell us more about scientists getting caught falsifying their dates? Who were they? When? Who caught them?One of the reasons we can trust the dates is because they're replicated. This replication is done in two ways. First, a date isn't accepted until at least a few research groups have repeated the same dating. Second, each research group submits their samples to multiple labs.Here are a few pages from Brent Dalrymple's book The Age of the Earth containing tables of the research results of many research groups, one table for Greenland, another table (on two pages) for the moon: Peruse the columns and see how uniform the dates are for the most ancient rocks across all the numerous research groups. Just looking down the Greenland table, here are the first few dating results: Here's a list of the methods used for the first few results: You're in essence accusing the following people from just the first few lines of the Greenland dates of making up results and colluding with each other to get conforming dates and covering up the cheating: Is this what you believe of all science, that scientists just make it up? We didn't really go to the moon, we just shot pictures and movies in slow motion? Opportunity and Spirit aren't really on Mars, the scientists just spend all their time and effort (and the government's money) faking it? Nuclear reactors don't really work? Geologic analyses are false and we don't really find oil and minerals, and all the data about oil and mineral reserves are faked and we're going to run out very soon? Secret factories in the mid-west churn out fossils for scientists to plant in the ground, and nuclear scientists seed the ground with the right amount of radiometric isotopes to date correctly? Is this what you believe?And nobody ever blows the whistle on all this? No scientist ever had a crises of conscience and just blew the whistle on the whole huge conspiracy? Thousands of university graduates join the ranks of scientists every year, and they all just go along with it, not a single one is repulsed at the invitation to participate in a massive deciption and blows the whistle? No documents outlining the conspiracy and collusion have ever been found? The conspiracy just goes on and on and on, and the only people who have figured out what's going on are members of a Christian religious sect who, by the the most unexpected of coincidences, believe scientific views on these subjects contradict their religious beliefs?Pretty ridiculous, right?Argue the evidence. Stop accusing people you don't know of reprehensible acts of deception that they couldn't possibly get away with anyway.--Percy

Who are the foxes guarding the hen house in this case? Does the results one expect to find have any bearing on what they do? Like a pychic, who comes up right sometime, how much can we depend on the sessions? In setting up the process, do we assume anything at all? In as much as they can come up with recent dates that can be verified by history, fine. Aside from that, I'd have to trust the pyscic, regardless of the updated crystal ball.

The scientific process. Peer review. The reality that fame and fortune and babes await the scientist who proves the conventional thinking wrong.Well, maybe not babes, and not often fortune ... but definitely fame.

No. Unlike psychics and prophets, you don't have to take a scientists word for anything.If you doubt the dating procedures that returned a certain date, you can examine the dater's methodology and techniques, scrutinize for errors, judge the soundness of their conclusions. It's called "peer review."Of course, in order to do that, you'd have to actually find out how radiometric dating works and how it is done, which apparently you can't be bothered to do. But it's possible. On the other hand, no amount of schooling can get God to dictate the next book of the Bible to you.I'll take the results of a scientist over the results of a prophet any day, because at least in the scientist's case I can determine if he's lying.

If you read the thread, it should be noticed the word caught was used in such a way as to refer to evidence like in court that was false, so as the rest would be thrown out. It wasn't that an individual was refered to, as being anything but unable to put a whole equation together. I've read many cases where the results were comically way off in dates. The whole method has been 'caught' a good number of times! Busted. You listed I presume some bigwigs involved in the dating process, as if I meant they were fraudulent. I think you chose to do that. Perhaps I should chose to rattle off a few names who believed in a creator, Einstein (I believe) Newton, and on and on to probably most big names of earlier science. So, regardless of one's name, or job, there has been errors. Those dates not thought to be in error, have little bearing on any actual real time facts, since
it's more of a 'if things were as they now are, it would have taken so many years' type result. You and anyone else can respect that as you wish. I have a limited regard for it. You want to talk about name calling, accusations, and such--read what some of these guys spit out when you mention Walt!

True, any more than schooling helped some to get the first books! I am hoping not many scientists (or Bible prophets) would lie. They would simply voice their opinions the best they know how, according to what they were taught. My thoughts lie more with the ideas themselves, rather that with the people currently swallowing them.

That's not how evidence works in court. Scientific techniques are only rejected if they return bad data even if you did them the right way. Every technique returns bad data if you do it the wrong way.You'll have to show some evidence of radiometric dating returning bad results even after the technique was used correctly to discredit dating in general. The fact that some people do it wrong (sometimes on purpose) doesn't have anything to do with whether or not radiometric dating is a valid test.

We have spent time and effort showing you why we trust constant decay rates. Care to comment on the actual evidence, such as the supernovae or the Oklo reactor which shows constant decay rates for 2 billion years?

Well, again, scientists aren't an Elect. Anyone can play. If you have better ideas that explain the data, fire away. Just be prepared to defend them.

Apparently Walt doesn't agree! Could it be two plus four that they thought was 2 + 2? I think Walt believes there were reversals, but that they happened quickly in the flood period. So, if this data you brought up would lead one to accept millions of years in age I would say it need a new look. If not, I don't much care!

Actually, I'll admit, I trust the decay rates as well!!! They do decay! So do people, old age! I do not trust that because something has a decay rate you can extrapulate a long backward time frame though! -- As far as the 2 billion year thing, why would one say that?