Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Greetings,
You've essentially pointed out that Brown mentions mountains but without indicating where and in what context - that was the point I was attempting to make.
And yes, I haven't read it - but then I shouldn't need to read the whole thing just to find out the above. If I was talking to someone who didn't know the bible, I'd quote book, chapter and verse for them, so that they don't have to trawl through it just to see if I'm right or not.
Morton did not deny that Brown mentioned mountains - he argues that Brown's model doesn't work with mountains or any other difference in height due to the added stress cracking the crust.
How could Morton critique Brown's model - as he summarizes in his response - if he didn't know it.
Again, my point above explains what you apparently aren't taking into account - Morton points out that Brown's model doesn't work with differences in height on the surface.
Why? Because Brown's model has the same depth for the crust all round the Earth. His mentioning of mountains shows that Brown doesn't understand that they crack his model - pun intended.
And in case you missed it, the above quote is actually from Morton.
Your attempt at a sardonic reply doesn't allow you to escape doing some mathematics and working out how much of a deflection would occur.
The problem with that possible explanation is that the deposits would be of different masses, and would not all be thrown out at the same velocity - some would be also at the edge of the supposed escaping water, resulting in their not travelling at escape velocity. Therefore, some would fall back to Earth. We don't find any - ergo, this explanation and model is false.
Plastic flow occurs when solids behave like fluids.
In this second case, the crust - in Brown's model - would (due to micro-fracturing) ripple, as I explained, because the stresses would be permanent, and being so, the crust would never have any opportunity to return to a solid structure.
The simplest way I can explain this for you is to ask you to consider a cheesecake base (solid), then crumble it (micro-fracturing), and then float it on the surface of a fluid - let's assume for the moment that the crumble doesn't dissolve/sink.
What you end up with is crumble undulating on the surface - essentially behaving like the underlying fluid.
And that admission is why science goes with "explanations better than" others.
Brown's model does not explain everything as well as does plate tectonics. That's why it's rejected..
Attempting - never-mind failing - to prove that Morton has not read Brown's book does not prove Morton's mathematics/explanation wrong.
The rest of your post appears to be missing the appropriate use of the QUOTE-END QUOTE style.
I think you meant:
My point still stands - the physics of Brown's failed model would result in the water escaping anyway.
And I'm not ranting - merely incredulous that you can believe that the myth of a flood explains craters on bodies throughout the solar system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the end of the day, Brown - like all Biblical Creationists - is attempting to fit the evidence to his presupposition that the bible is true.
This is the same as Ptolemy's attempt to add ever more circles to his model to correct for errors in observation of the planets' positions in their orbits.
He could make it work - but it was pointless: his model was wrong, as Kepler came up with a simpler explanation which didn't require constant tweaking.
Kindest regards,
James
I apologise for the error - I'd actually typed this reply twice, and lost it, due to my browser crashing twice before successfully getting it posted, by which time I was getting punchy.Stripe said:
You've essentially pointed out that Brown mentions mountains but without indicating where and in what context - that was the point I was attempting to make.
And yes, I haven't read it - but then I shouldn't need to read the whole thing just to find out the above. If I was talking to someone who didn't know the bible, I'd quote book, chapter and verse for them, so that they don't have to trawl through it just to see if I'm right or not.
What straw man do you believe he is attacking?
Morton did not deny that Brown mentioned mountains - he argues that Brown's model doesn't work with mountains or any other difference in height due to the added stress cracking the crust.
Again, you keep claiming that he hasn't read it - you cannot prove that.
How could Morton critique Brown's model - as he summarizes in his response - if he didn't know it.
Again, my point above explains what you apparently aren't taking into account - Morton points out that Brown's model doesn't work with differences in height on the surface.
No, it doesn't.
Why? Because Brown's model has the same depth for the crust all round the Earth. His mentioning of mountains shows that Brown doesn't understand that they crack his model - pun intended.
And in case you missed it, the above quote is actually from Morton.
Try reading what, exactly?
Your attempt at a sardonic reply doesn't allow you to escape doing some mathematics and working out how much of a deflection would occur.
I guess that he explains this by saying they were all thrown out into space?!
The problem with that possible explanation is that the deposits would be of different masses, and would not all be thrown out at the same velocity - some would be also at the edge of the supposed escaping water, resulting in their not travelling at escape velocity. Therefore, some would fall back to Earth. We don't find any - ergo, this explanation and model is false.
Because no subterranean deposits were thrown up in the first place - therefore we shouldn't expect to find any: and we don't.
You don't appear to understand what "plastic flow" is.
Plastic flow occurs when solids behave like fluids.
In this second case, the crust - in Brown's model - would (due to micro-fracturing) ripple, as I explained, because the stresses would be permanent, and being so, the crust would never have any opportunity to return to a solid structure.
The simplest way I can explain this for you is to ask you to consider a cheesecake base (solid), then crumble it (micro-fracturing), and then float it on the surface of a fluid - let's assume for the moment that the crumble doesn't dissolve/sink.
What you end up with is crumble undulating on the surface - essentially behaving like the underlying fluid.
At last - the first thing you've said that makes sense.
And that admission is why science goes with "explanations better than" others.
Brown's model does not explain everything as well as does plate tectonics. That's why it's rejected..
False.
Attempting - never-mind failing - to prove that Morton has not read Brown's book does not prove Morton's mathematics/explanation wrong.
The rest of your post appears to be missing the appropriate use of the QUOTE-END QUOTE style.
I think you meant:
Although I'm not sure as you don't seem to answer?!
My point still stands - the physics of Brown's failed model would result in the water escaping anyway.
You're the one using that book to make your various claims - you point out exactly where and how it explains supercritical water turning into kinetic energy and other such things, like creating craters on other bodies in the solar system.
If you include chapter/page numbers and actual explanations yourself, maybe we can have a "rational discussion".
And it's boring reading your unsubstantiated "answers without answering the question" replies.
And I'm not ranting - merely incredulous that you can believe that the myth of a flood explains craters on bodies throughout the solar system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the end of the day, Brown - like all Biblical Creationists - is attempting to fit the evidence to his presupposition that the bible is true.
This is the same as Ptolemy's attempt to add ever more circles to his model to correct for errors in observation of the planets' positions in their orbits.
He could make it work - but it was pointless: his model was wrong, as Kepler came up with a simpler explanation which didn't require constant tweaking.
Kindest regards,
James
