Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   glaciers and the flood
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 91 of 96 (188665)
02-26-2005 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by allenroyboy
02-26-2005 2:16 AM


Re: Creationary view of the Ice Age
allenroyboy
For the most part, there has been no need to come up with anything new because the major arguments remain the same.
Its not a matter of going backwards, but rather of getting back on track.
I am in agreement with you here,shall we get back to the OP question?
I just thought of an interesting test of flood lore. As I understand it the waters of the flood covered the highest mountains to an excess of 15 cubits. What is the effect upon ice covered with warm ocean water to a depth of at least 20000 feet for a period of 40 days?I believe it would have been sufficient to melt all ice upon earth including the polar regions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by allenroyboy, posted 02-26-2005 2:16 AM allenroyboy has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 92 of 96 (188680)
02-26-2005 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by allenroyboy
02-26-2005 12:33 AM


Re: Joe Meerts examples of Paleosiols (sic).
quote:
Frankly, I believe that they are hard to recognize simply because they are not paleosols. I believe that a cataclysmic interpretation can be found for all the interpreted paleosols especially in light of tsunami deposition.
JM: The irony meter just went red. Ok, we should accept this proclamation because....
quote:
I did not mean to imply at paleosols should have ALL the horizions found in soils, although it may have sounded like it. Since a soil is defined by means of horizions, then a paleosol should have at least one horizion. Since your did not mention any such horizion in the formation, and one certainly did not appear in the photo, then classifying it as a paleosol is certainly ambiguous and perhaps arbitrary. It appears to be simply an unsorted conglomerate.
JM: You visited the outcrop when? Are you aware of the current discussion regarding the definition of paleosols within the scientific community?
quote:
I find it interesting that in the web page you simply call it a paleosol without providing any evidence.
JM: No, I explained why it was on the website and I explained that an expert in paleosols examined the outcrop. I also explained that you may completely disregard this example and you are still left with thousands of others to dismiss.
quote:
And, in the paper in Tectonics, you assert in a single line with no referrences that it is a paleosol. And now, you say that your source of interpretation is Steve Hasiotis. But even yet there is no explanation why this is a paleosol, it all rests upon an appeal to authority.
JM: As does your refutation of it. Two of us (hasiotis and myself) have been to the outcrop, examined the outcrop and concluded that it is a paleosol. We might be wrong, but at this point I tend to rely more on our observations than on those who have never been to the site or ever published on paleosols.
More on your alleged paradigm later.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by allenroyboy, posted 02-26-2005 12:33 AM allenroyboy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Joe Meert, posted 02-26-2005 3:05 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 93 of 96 (188686)
02-26-2005 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by allenroyboy
02-26-2005 12:33 AM


Re: Joe Meerts examples of Paleosiols.
allenroyboy writes:
Every Flood cataclysmist that of whom I know, recognizes that paleosol interpretation of various layers cannot fit in a cataclysm setting. Over the pase several years papers have appeared in Creationary literature discussing the issue. Largely it is recognized that the issue is one of interpretation based upon which paradigm you are working within.
Discussion in science forum threads takes place within a scientific framework. There can be opposing interpretative paradigms within that framework, but your earlier posts gave me the impression that you see the issue as a naturalistic paradigm versus a Creationism paradigm. You said your acceptance of YEC views is based upon revelation from God.
There are two reasons for disallowing religious arguments in the science threads. First, EvC Forum discourages attacks on the religious beliefs of others, and citing religious beliefs as the foundation of scientific theories opens these beliefs up to attack in the form of valid rebuttals. And second, allowing religious arguments in the science threads causes too many threads to go off-topic into discussions of the relevance and validity of revelation in science. For these reasons, religious arguments in support of scientific theories are usually limited to the [forum=-11], [forum=-1] and [forum=-6] forums.
The power of any particular scientific paradigm is its ability to interpret and make sense of the evidence. Complaints that "You only see it that way because of your paradigm" can only be considered introductory statements and must be followed by evidence. Since field expeditions on the spur of the moment are out of the question, I hope that you and Joe can find a few web-accessible and well documented paleosols so you can discuss the evidence in detail.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by allenroyboy, posted 02-26-2005 12:33 AM allenroyboy has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 94 of 96 (188727)
02-26-2005 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Joe Meert
02-26-2005 9:41 AM


Re: Joe Meerts examples of Paleosiols (sic).
the rest of my reply:
I’ve given you a good example of why the ‘framework’ argument is a red-herring. You’re basically claiming that all ‘frameworks’ offer the same explanatory power. Thus if someone has the ‘pixie’ framework that establishes that all geologic observations were made by evil pixies, it should be considered equally with ye-creationism. After all, both the pixieists, the naturalists and the ye-creationists have access to the same observations. They just interpret them differently. Perhaps the true acid test of ye-creationism is how it is valued by those with no stake in how well the paradigm works. Oil companies don’t ask to see the latest creation model to help them find oil, yet they do consult people like Hasiotis to examine paleoenvironments. They consult paleomagnetists to help them establish continental configurations and locate potential places for oil exploration. When the rubber meets the road and $$ is on the line, not a single oil company wants to hear the ye-creation world view because it offers no informational value.
I don’t doubt for a second that creationists will need to reinterpret paleosols to fit their worldview just as they must reinterpret tillites. The real issue is the value of the paradigm. Ye-creationists have to re-interpret the fossil record, transitional fossils. They need to reinterpret aeolian deposits, desert varnish, the presence of tracks in sandstone. They need to reinterpret the standard biological classification system. They have to re-interpret every single radiometric date, the physics of radiometric dating. They have to reinterpret astronomical observations, the 2nd law of thermodynamics etc. etc. The real question they never seem to want to ask is how all these sciences could be so wrong and yet function so well. Instead of saying, you know, we (ye-creationists) have to come up with an excuse for nearly every scientific discovery that is made...could it be that we are wrong? Instead, they fall back and say "No, our interpretation of the bible is correct and therefore we are right to force the round pegs of science into our square view of theology.
Furthermore, most of ye-creation science is reactionary. Modern science makes an observation and ye-creationists re-interpret that observation. Yet ye-creationists make very few novel observations of their own and thus the scientific value of ye-creationism can rightly be challenged.
Cheers
Joe Meert
This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 02-26-2005 15:09 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Joe Meert, posted 02-26-2005 9:41 AM Joe Meert has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 96 (188748)
02-26-2005 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by allenroyboy
02-26-2005 12:33 AM


quote:
Frankly, I believe that they are hard to recognize simply because they are not paleosols.
Or because of well understood soil-forming and alteration processes in pedology and paleopedology..
quote:
I believe that a cataclysmic interpretation can be found for all the interpreted paleosols especially in light of tsunami deposition.
--Well, that is the hope and indeed an ultimate requirement for catastrophic geology. Also, I strongly disagree with deposition via a (developed) tsunami--at least for most paleosols I have studied. There is simply far too much energy in tsunami's.
You may be interested in reading through some of the discussion in the thread Paleosols, long and tedious, however I stand by my general argument that allocthonous deposition of the paleosols and forests is a good explanation of the data. Like evolutionary theory, however, the mechanism (of deposition) is debatable.
quote:
I did not mean to imply at paleosols should have ALL the horizions found in soils, although it may have sounded like it. Since a soil is defined by means of horizions, then a paleosol should have at least one horizion. Since your did not mention any such horizion in the formation, and one certainly did not appear in the photo, then classifying it as a paleosol is certainly ambiguous and perhaps arbitrary. It appears to be simply an unsorted conglomerate.
--I explained in my previous post why just staring at the photo is inadequate. Furthermore, a soil does not require visible horizon development, also briefly explained in my previous post.

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by allenroyboy, posted 02-26-2005 12:33 AM allenroyboy has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 96 of 96 (188810)
02-26-2005 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by allenroyboy
02-26-2005 2:16 AM


Re: Creationary view of the Ice Age
1. The context of my quote places this as an interpretation by flood cataclysmists, not evolutionary geologists.
But, I am a catastrophist.
2. When a water current in a large bay flows across a sandy bottom, sand waves (similar in formation to subaerial sand dunes) are formed.
This is known, but not relevant. Subaqueous dunes have other features that you conveniently ignore. Please read the rest of the section on comparing the geology with the flood model.
3. As the water flows up the back of the sandwave it strips the surface of the sandwave by picking up sand grains.
4. Once the crest of the sandwave is reached much of the sand falls into the low-energy water on the leeward side of the sand wave.
Ah, so you are saying that there is some erosion going on? Hmm, that means that laminations formed earlier are destroyed. Do you factor this into your notions of how long it takes to make these deposits? How many times do you think a lamination is formed before one is actually preserved?
5. On this leeward side of the sandwave, where the crossbedding feature is formed, the sand softly drifts to the crossbedding surface, forming layer after layer.
"Softly drifts...", doesn't sound very cataclysmic to me. However, this is wrong. Brethault describes the process as miniature landslides on the lee slopes. THat is why they form so rapidly.
6. In the Flood cataclysm model, an amphibian runs/plods UP the crossbedding surface on the leeward side of the sandwave. (note: ALL fosil traces go UP the crossbedded surface. NO fossil traces go DOWN or ACROSS the crossbedded surface, which is a problem for a subaerial interpretation. "One Way" signs at the bottom of the dunes?)
So you are saying that in water-logged sediments you can maintain a track as the laminations are formed rapidly?
7. As soon as the tracks are made, they are filled in by the continually falling sand forming more crossbeding layers and instantly preserving the traces.
Wrong. THe process is much more rapid than that. Your little amphibian would be choked and buried by sediment long before scurrying up the dune. You can't have it both ways here.
8. When the amphibian reaches the crest of the sandwave it is exposed to the high energy current and is picked up by the current only to be dropped beyond/below the sandwave again. The amphibian then tries to escape up the crossbedding slope again.
This is nonsensical when we consider that you have to deposit the entire Coconino in a matter of hours. It is also nonsensical when you look at the other evidence for eolian deposition, such as uniform grain sizes, etc. not found in subaqueous dunes.
9. This explanation comes from Austin, "Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe."
This is an ad hoc explanation that ignores other data, including some of the ramifications of flood deposition.
10. In a Flood cataclysm model, the flood waters may well be near saturation level and so much of the sand dropped on the crossbedding surfaces will be from the floodwaters as it looses energy and therefor carrying power, rather than just the moving of sand that happens in bays today.
Could you rephrase this? I have no idea what you mean by 'floodwaters being near saturation level.'
e: The point was that if presuppositions are so strong, then why did scientists who had presuppositions of YEC so quickly abandon them in the second half of the 19th century? The only interpretation could be that those old presuppositions were so weak that they could not explain the data.
ARB: The issuse is not how strong the presuppositions were, but rather that many naturalists adopted interpretations without understanding or being aware of the presuppositions. It is likely that most simply did not recognize that there were presuppositions [just as many scientists today]. They did not realize that much "emperical evidence" was actually interpretation based upon persuppositions..
Not the point. THe point is, 'why were presuppositions of pre-evolutionary science so weak that they could be overcome by mere evidence?' And yet now you are saying that all of this evidence is not strong enough to overcome the existing presuppositions. This dog won't hunt.
e: You guys haven't come up with anything new in nearly a century. I am sure that science will change what we think now, but I am also certain that we will NOT go backwards, as you would like.
ARB: For the most part, there has been no need to come up with anything new because the major arguments remain the same.
Yes, I've noticed. One would think that since those arguments have failed to save science so many times before that you'd come up with something new.
Its not a matter of going backwards, but rather of getting back on track.
That's exactly what it is. We abandoned YEC and the flood a long time ago for good reason.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by allenroyboy, posted 02-26-2005 2:16 AM allenroyboy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024