The reference goes on to underscore that this indicates that the lithosphere must be very strong to continue to support the mountains for millions of years, which refutes the second of Brown’s conclusions. We will examine this in more detail shortly, but for now it is important to point out how Brown misuses his own references.Moral: abuse not thy quote sources.
Your source contains a convincing demonstration that the crust can be as little as 15km thick. That helps you a little, but 15km is still 9.3 miles. And would a crust that thin sustain the big craters Venus has that didn't flood with magma?
And then there's this:
The result is that the current atmosphere, while probably billions of years old, did not form until after the surface crust had formed, hence its current high temperature would have been no barrier to the formation of a solid surface.The atmosphere, billions of years old, is younger than that crust, whatever its thickness. Billions of years old is a bit wrong for you, isn't it? I do believe you have been cafeteria shopping your sources, taking only what works for you.
Am I being picky? You don't like the astronomical observations of the 19th century because you think they hurt your case and besides, they're so primitive. But you like the minor irregularities in the observations from the time of Ashurbanipal* because they help your case.
A really useful theory doesn't pick one or two points and try to just do them better, overall picture be damned. You have to fit all the data better, or at least do a better overall job than the currently reigning model.
*Ashurbanipal, King of Assyria (629-626 BC). About halfway back to the 3000 BC Sumerians who made crudely similar if less quantitative observations of Venus. He's far later than even the latest date (circa 1450 BC, but it might have been 200 years earlier) for the explosion of Thera. 1450 is also IIRC the date Velikovsky uses in W.I.C. for his own curious catastrophe.
Well, there you have it ... evos making up facts to suit their case. No one anywhere believes Velikovsky was alive in 1450, therefore he couldn't have had "his own curious catastrophe" then. You slimers make me sick with your lies and distortions.
A short while ago, you were claiming that the thick crust was a reason for rejectino the clear implication of the albedo and ir flux data, but now you can see that the thick crust is basically just a theory, and nobody has ever done any real seismic readings on Venus and nobody really knows or can do more than guess how thick the crust is.
Nonetheless, you still assume that some sort of a big picture of data refutes Velikovsky so cleanly that none of these little details really matters.
Why don't you name another part of the "big picture", Reep; tell me which piece of the picture you'd like to see me demolish next.