Replies

Well, there are any number of things wrong with the rebutt. First of all, it assumes that the continents float on the water pocket beneath. Brown did not hypothesize this.

Second, The force of jetting on release for which the rebuttal is considered does not account for a fissure that expands around the planet jetting evenly and therefore at even pressure. It is assumed that a portion of the water reaches escape velocity. Given that the guy was given sketchy information and didn't apply the known quantities of the theory and the facts it deals with, it's hardly a surprise what conclusion he would reach. The only way for pressure of release to remain consistant is if a single exit point were determined and it niether shrunk nor grew during time of expulsion. The theory however, doesn't just note the midoceanic ridge as a fracture point; but, notes other vent points around the world that erupted as the continents began to move and shift under stress.

In short, it helps to actually respond to the theory rather than respond to a bad summation of it in a 1 dimensional manner. And considering the amount of time it took you to both read Brown and this response. One wonders if you didn't just cut and paste the response as an ad hoc rebuttal. But we'll leave that for you to quarral with yourself over. One more disengenuous response chalked up.

One more disengenuous response chalked up.

You're not fooling anyone. Waving your hands doesn't make Morton's solid analysis any less valid.

But come on, let's cut to the chase -- why don't you come right out and tell us all that you think the Earth is no more than 6000 years old, and *that's* why you have to argue against Geology so strongly (since nearly everything in modern Geology shows such a belief to be pure fantasy)? Not to mention any valid dating method, etc...

Repeat after me: "I, Havoc, am so out of touch that I truly believe the Earth is a grand total of 6000 years old, never mind the shark teeth (that was just one of God's little practical jokes)..."