[_ Old Earth _] Baloney Detector.

[jwu]

nothing in that thread really refuted anything, you said the water can't be that deep because of what we've seen today, But even at 5 miles (as opposed to 10) the water would be fine.

No, it wouldn't even be fine at that depth either. And temperature is just one out of the many problems...

If you wish to continue the discussion, then let's take it to the appropriate thread.

just like the oil deposits that are under pressure up to 200,000 PSI in some spots, that fact we still have underground oil pressure suggests a young earth.

How so? I see no connection between the two.

 

[John]

If you wish to continue the discussion, then let's take it to the appropriate thread.

Let me get the shove to dig it up

just like the oil deposits that are under pressure up to 200,000 PSI in some spots, that fact we still have underground oil pressure suggests a young earth.

How so? I see no connection between the two.[/quote]

The water was under pressure, sooner or later it opened up, (fountains of the deep)
The oil is under pressure, so it should erupt or bleed off, the fact that its still under immense pressure suggests that the oil is young since if it was old it would have bled off by now.

 

[jwu]

The water was under pressure, sooner or later it opened up, (fountains of the deep)

That part is begging the question.

The oil is under pressure, so it should erupt or bleed off, the fact that its still under immense pressure suggests that the oil is young since if it was old it would have bled off by now.

Why couldn't the oil have been under pressure for a long time? Why couldn't the pressure have increased due to rather recent geological events? And most importantly - what has the age of the oil to do with the age of the earth? It establishes a minimum age, but not a maximum age.

 

[Bryce]

By any normal standard of debate your claim does not stand at all right now. Unless you mean, it stands refuted, that is ;)

Don't use the term 'Refuted' too lightly, Johns a smart guy but he's no Walter Brown. I can argue a two year old saying that 6 x 6 = 12 and get him to believe it, but that does not make me correct.

Send your argument to Walter yourself before shooting the messenger, you make a good point and perhaps your correct.
Walter Brown offers of a written debate with any evolutionists, no evolutionist has ever taken him up on it.

 

[John]

By any normal standard of debate your claim does not stand at all right now. Unless you mean, it stands refuted, that is ;)

Don't use the term 'Refuted' too lightly, Johns a smart guy but he's no Walter Brown. I can argue a two year old saying that 6 x 6 = 12 and get him to believe it, but that does not make me correct.

Send your argument to Walter yourself before shooting the messenger, you make a good point and perhaps your correct.
Walter Brown offers of a written debate with any evolutionists, no evolutionist has ever taken him up on it.

I can see the response now.

But big mean old walt brown makes the rules so unfair waa waa. 8-)

 

[jwu]

Send your argument to Walter yourself before shooting the messenger, you make a good point and perhaps your correct.
Walter Brown offers of a written debate with any evolutionists, no evolutionist has ever taken him up on it.

If i recall correctly he has rejected a debate with Joe Meert. Jim Lippard suggested to debate right in the forum where they were communicating, but he never heard of Brown again. Moreover, Brown didn't make a simple offer but demands 22 rules to be met. These seem to be designed to put people off, e.g. he demands that his opponent must hold a PhD for no discenable reason. He alsoa demands up to 100.000 words per round. While he as a retiree may have that much time on his hands, professional working geologists quite certainly don't.

Brown also refuses to defend his hydroplate hypothesis even in creationist journals.

 

[Patashu]

Testable Conclusions

1. There has been a worldwide flood in the past.

These statements are scientifically testable and there is enormous evidance to support each

Would you please share the enormous evidence that I've seemed to missed, even after searching for hours at a time?

Did you try Google? :

Hydro plate theory by Dr. walt brown. is a good place to start. http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid= ... 1&hl=en-CA

Physically impossible:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/hydroplate.htm

 

[Barbarian]

If i recall correctly he has rejected a debate with Joe Meert.

I remember that one. Brown kept adding conditions and limitations on Joe, to make sure he couldn't bring any science to bear on Brown's claims.

It was, like Hovind's offer, merely to convince the suckers that he had a real argument. He pretty much rigged the conditions to assure that nothing could be said that would refute his beliefs.