|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Hi, RandyB, and welcome!
Have you read Mr Birkeland's posts above? If not, I would recommend doing so - fully - before you go much further here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: I take it then, that someday you will continue to defend your position over at T-Web? If you think it was too hot for you over there, I don't know what to tell you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RandyB Inactive Member |
To see the list of papers and books that I used to come to my conclusions simply click on the following links:
Reference List: Addr.com Part One of my paper is at: Addr.com Here is Part Two:Addr.com Here is a table of 12 Sequencial "Coal Groups" that were numbered byDawson -- with details given for each group. Addr.com Here is another (much Shorter) "paper" I wrote on Evidences for a Worldwide Flood:Addr.com Here is another short list of Quotes on this topic that I thought wereworth quoting: Addr.com Here is another short paper I wrote on Flood Legends -- with links to much larger (and more detailed) papers.Addr.com Note also that additional Links on to other web pages with mucm more information are provided at the bottom of each of these papers -- with additional links in the text. See also the Link from my Homepage (below the drawing) for more on upright trees in Coal Seams. I will write more on this topic at a future date. Here is the exact Link, but the picture itself says a thousand words.Addr.com RB.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RandyB Inactive Member |
No it was not "too hot" for me over a T-Web. My views, and how I came to them are elaborated on my web page -- along with lots of reasons as to how I arrived at my conclusions. However, if you do not happen to agree with my conclusions then you are free to believe what you wish and to publish your findings.
I am not, however going to try to convince a skeptic that I am right and he (or she) is wrong. I would rather spend my time convincing others who are simply searching for the answers. And for your information, I have already spent 1.5 - 2 years of my spare time on an online debate forum such as this -- debating 7-10 skepticts -- and after many hundreds of posts and hundreds of hours trying to convince them that they had been deceived, I finally gave up. And now you want me to do the same thing with you. No Thanks. However, with that said, after reading over my paper, if you have any specific comments that you want to point out -- especially if you find anything that I say that is inaccurate, then please to contact me directly (via the email link that is accessable from my web page). God Bless You all. Sincerely, RandyB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Okay, let's check this one out... Here is one evidence:
quote: That's it? This is your entire explanation of marine fossils in the geological record? And one of your main references is Walt Brown? I'm stunned at the magnitude of your work. You obviously have an advanced degree. Truly, if this is your understanding of marine fossils in the mountains you are going to have a hard time here. Just a guess, of course. Maybe you'll win us all over to your side...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bill Birkeland Member (Idle past 2552 days) Posts: 165 From: Louisiana Joined: |
"I have personally looked into the fossil trees of Joggins,
Nova Scotia and came to the conclusion that most likely NONE of the upright trees in all of this 14,000 feet of strata are in situ -- meaning that it seems quite likely that they were entombed in this strata as a result of a great flood, such as what we read about in the book of Genesis. For those who want to know more about why (or how) I came to this conclusion, go to Earth Age – The Truth About Earth's Age and click on the Polystrate Fossil Trees link." Hwat "Randy S." refers to above is "The "Fossil Forests" of Nova Scotia: A Review of the Literature", Parts 1 and 2, by Randy S. Berg. It can be found at: The ‘Fossil Forests’ of Nova Scotia – How Old Are They Really? – Earth Age and The ‘Fossil Forests’ of Nova Scotia – How Old Are They Really? – Earth Age Far from proving anything about "most likely NONE of the upright trees in all ofthis 14,000 feet of strata are in situ", this article is an excellent example of the sloppy, antiquated, alleged "research" done by Young Earth creationists and how deaf, dumb, and blind they can be to evidence that contradicts their religious beliefs. If a person looks at the "review" by Randy S. Berg, they find that it was focused almost entirely on research published by Dawson and Lyell in the 1840s, 1850s, and 1860s about 140 to 160 years ago with a few "token" citations of modern papers published mentioned. In case of the few relatively token modern papers discussed in this "review", the evidence from them was cited and discussed out-of-context in a most misleading fashion. The antiquity of the papers focused on is a fatal problem, as pioneering as Dawson's and Lyell's work was, it has been long since superceded by numerous other papers. The so-called "review" by Mr. Berg completely ignored these papers and their far more detailed descriptions and interpretations of the lithology, sedimentary structures, paleontology, and innumerable ***fossil soils*** found in the strata exposed at Joggins. Relative to these modern studies, the descriptions of the strata at Joggins given in Dawson's and Lyell's are quite vague and overlook many important details to the point, that they now have little, if any, scientific value and are only of historical interest. Similarly, the figures presented by them would be considered far too vague and diagrammatic to be of any use in any modern discussion of the geology of the Joggins sequence. In short, the so-review by Berg, in part, is scientifically bankrupt in that it focuses almost entirely on research that has been superceded by more detailed studies, which the review almost completely ignores and completely refutes the arguments it makes. Berg's paper is more honestly called "The "Fossil Forests" of Nova Scotia: A Review of the 19th Century Literature (with a Some Token 20th Century Citations Thrown in to Present a False Sense of Completeness)". (Also in the 20th Century citations, papers by either Young Earth creationists, i.e. Coffin, Rupke, Helder, Morris, and Austin, are cited disproportionally more than conventional geologists in respect to the actual number of their published papers about Joggins.) For example, Davies & Gibling (2003), in their detailed study of the section of strata exposed in cliffs at Joggins, Nova Scotia, found that sedimentary strata consist of distinctive sedimentary facies, undescribed and unrecognized by either Dawson or Lyell in their pioneering, but now antiquated studies. In addition, these distinctive facies occur in repetitive cycles called "rhythms", which were also unrecognized by either Dawson or Lyell in their research. As summarized by Falcon-Lang (2004), Davies & Gibling (2003) found that the: "Joggins Formation facies associations areorganized into eight sedimentary rhythms in the studied section (Fig. 2). Rhythms 1 and 5-8 are 25-80 m thick, and consist of retrogradational poorly drained coastal plain units overlain by brackish open water units, capped by progradational poorly drained coastal plain units. Rhythms 2-4 are 70 m, 30 m and 210 m thick, respectively, and comprise a very similar succession differing only in the additional occurrence of multiple intercalated partially drained and well-drained alluvial plain units above the progradational coastal plain unit and below the retrogradational coastal plain unit of the following rhythm (progradational coastal plain deposits are suppressed in rhythm 3)." As demonstrated by Davies & Gibling (2003), it fits all of the data to interpret these sedimentary facies in terms of sediment accumulating within a coastal plain experiencing fault-induced subsidence and effected by sea level rising and falling by 75 meters during glacial-interglacial cycles. Episodes of faulting would cause rapid flooding of the coastal plain resulting in either poorly drained floodplains or large brackish water bays. Later filling of either the poorly drained floodplains or open bays by peat mires, overbank flooding, and delta would later built up the coastal plain to well-drained alluvial plain. Later fault-related subsidence would start the cycle over again with the extent of subsidence moderated by contemporaneous glacial - interglacial sea level changes (Falcon-Lang 2003, 2004). The cyclic repetition of these facies, as documented by Davies & Gibling (2003), is perfectly consistent with this model. The same cyclic model, including the many fossil soils (paleosols), subaerially / pedogenically weathered sediments, and entrenched valleys, described in this and earlier papers, are impossible to explain using deposition by a single Noachian Flood. Similarly, Falcon-Lang (2003) demonstrated that in addition to a cyclic repetition of sedimentery facies, there was a cyclic repetition of very different fossil plants unrecognized and undescribed by Dawson and Lyell. Falcon-Lang (2004) found that each of the distinctive sedimentary facies is consistently associated with a specific and distinctive assemblage of fossil plants. As individual facies repeat themselves in cycles in the section of rocks exposed in the Joggins sea cliffs, the assemblage of fossil plants repeat themselves. Falcon-Lang (2003) demonstrated cyclic changes in the environment of a coastal plain as a result of glacial-interglacial sea level fluctuations within a subsiding basin explains not only the repetition of sedimentary facies, but also the observed repetition of fossil plants. A Young earth creationist is stuck with how can the Noachian Flood can precisely sort plants according to type that they always match each other and the specific sedimentary facies, in which they are found, and repeat cyclic manner throughout the outcrop at Joggins. For additional comments on problems with Young Earth creationist interpretations of the outcrops at Joggins, Nova Scotia, a person should read: http://EvC Forum: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion) -->EvC Forum: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion) http://EvC Forum: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion) -->EvC Forum: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion) If an interested lurker wants to examine something more recent than the 140 to 160-year old antiquated research, on which Mr. Berg's "review" narrowly focuses, they can read through: Calder, J. H., Gibling, M. R., Scott, A. C., Davies, S. J.,and Hebert, B.L. In press. A fossil lycopsid forest succession in the classic Joggins section of Nova Scotia: paleoecology of a disturbance-prone Pennsylvanian wetland. In Wetlands through time. Edited by S. Greb and W.A. DiMichele. Special Paper in press, Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado. Davies, S. J. and Gibling, M. R., 2003, Architecture ofcoastal and alluvial deposits in an extensional basin: the Carboniferous Joggins Formation of Eastern Canada. Sedimentology, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 415-439. Falcon-Lang, H. J., 2003, Response of Late Carboniferoustropical vegetation to transgessive-regressive rhythms, Joggins, Nova Scotia. Journal of the Geological Society of London. vol. 160, no. 4, pp. 643-648. Falcon-Lang, H. J., 2003, Late Carboniferous drylandtropical vegetation, in a dryland alluvial-plain setting, Joggins, Nova Scotia, Canada. Palaios, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 197-211. Falcon-Lang, H. J. 2004a, Pennsylvanian tropical rainforests responded to glacial-interglacial climate rhythms. Geology vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 689-692. Falcon-Lang, H. J., and Bashforth, A. R., 2004,Pennsylvanian uplands were forested by giant cordaitalean trees. Geology. vol. 32, no.5, pp. 417-420. Falcon-Lang, H. J., and Calder, J. H., 2004,b, UNESCOWorld Heritage and the Joggins cliffs of Nova Scotia. Geology Today. vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 135-143. Falcon-Lang, H. J., Gibling, M. R., Calder, J. H., 2004.An early Pennsylvanian waterhole deposit and its fossil biota in a dryland alluvial plain setting, Joggins, Nova Scotia. Journal of the Geological Society of London. vol. 161, no.2, pp. 209-222. Falcon-Lang, H. J., Rygel, M. C., Gibling, M. R., Calder,J.H. & Davies, S. 2004. A dance to the rhythym of time. Geoscientist. vol.14, no. 4, pp.5-6, 8-9. Rygel., M. C., Gibling, R.M., and Calder, J. H., 2004,Vegetation-induced sedimentary structures from fossil forests in the Pennsylvanian Joggins Formation, Nova Scotia. Sedimentology. vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 531-552 In these papers, the interested lurker will find an abundance of well-documented evidence, which utterly refutes what "Randy S." has to say in his post and what Mr. Berg stated in his so-called "review". If nothing else, the new observations, data, and interpretations presented by other older publications, not discussed by Mr. Berg and in the above and other older papers, have rendered Mr. Berg's alleged "review" completely, scientifically obsolete and worthless. Another example of how the so-called "review" of Mr. Berg can be blind to contradictory evidence, is shown in footnote no. 9 of Berg's so-called "review". This footnote stated: "Another place where large tree stumps are preserved withouttheir roots is Axel Heiberg Island in Northern Canada." Conventional geologists would consider this a remarkably ill-informed statement because both popular and scientific publications, it is obvious anyone, except the vision impaired, can find pictures of the large tree stumps that have been found at Axel Heiberg Island. For example, in both Basinger (1987) and Lemonick (1986), there is an undeniable picture of one of the scientists studying the Axel Heiberg Island forests standing on the very tree roots that Young Earth creationists claim don't exist. These and other pictures of these roots, documented fossil soils (paleosols), and other evidence presented in scientific publications, clearly show that the subfossil trees found at Axel Heiberg Island are, beyond any shadow of a doubt are rooted in place. The inability of Young Earth creationists to observe rooted trees that quite clearly exist at the Axel Heiberg Island and in the Joggin, Nova Scotia, sea cliffs is a remarkable example of how people are so blinded by their preconceptions that they are totally deaf, dumb, and blind to reality. It is one of many reasons why convential geologists regards much of incredibly bad science that Young Earth creationists publish as alleged "research" with disdain and much humor. Randy S. continued: I also, while studying this, came across compelling evidencethat this strata is quite young (probably less than 10,000 years old). This is because of the organic material that is still present in some of the fossilized logs and unfossilized shells." Neither the nature the organic matter in the fossilized logs nor so-called "unfossilized" shells provides any evidence of this strata being less than 10,000 years old. The nature of the organic matter and the shells in the Joggins outcrops are completely consistent with them being about 310 millions of years old. Randy S. continued: "In addition, I came across very strong evidence that thesedeposits were not the result of "rivers" that overflowed their banks, but rather for marine influences." In Mr. Berg's paper given above, this conclusion is based by very selective, out-of-context portray of the evidence and a gross ignorance of basic principles of sedimentology. If a person looks at the few recent references cited by and those ignored by Mr. Berg in his so-called "review", they will find that the unquestionable marine fossils, i.e. the ostracods and agglutinated foraminfera discussed by Tibert (1999a, 1999b) and others, are limited to specific intervals. As well-documented in literature published in the 140 to 160 years since the articles published by Dawson and Lyell, the strata exposed within the at Joggins, Nova Scotia, accumulated within a coastal plain lying within a tectonically active basin subject to periodic fault-subsidence. The degree of subsidence was moderated by glacial - interglacial sea level changes on the order of 75 meters. As a result, tectonic subsidence of the basin during interglacial high stands of sea level would have periodically inundated, the Joggins area, as in many coastal plains, with marine waters. Once sea level had stabilized, thin beds of marine sediments would have accumulated until the shallow nearshore zone was filled in by deltas and built up as alluvial plains by the rivers supplying the deltas. Within the Mississippi Delta and Louisiana coastal plain and continental shelf, a person finds similar cyclic interplayering of marine, deltaic, and river deposits. The interlayering of these deposits, as in the Joggins sea cliffs, simply reflects the interplay between regional subsidence and glacial-interglacial sea level resulting in the back and forth movement of the shoreline over time. The presence of either marine of brackish-water fossil within the Joggin strata requires neither a global flood as an explanation nor is any evidence of it. As far as tidal deposits and brackish water sediments and shells, a person can find such sediments interlayered with the fluvial and deltaic deposits beneath many a modern coastal plain just as they are found within the Joggins outcrops. Brackish and tidal water deposits often fill bays that extend long distances into coastal plains comprised of alluvial deposits. In the case of bays formed by the flooding of a valley created by the entrenchment of a river, these sediments would directly overlie fluvial deposits. If sea level were remain stable for a long enough period of time, alluvial deposits would eventually bury these tidal or brackish water sediments creating interlayered deposits similar to those found in the Joggins outcrops. Furthermore, brackish water and tidal strata also are associated with deltas. If "Randy S." was to go to the Mississippi River Delta, he would find that large parts of its delta plain, the interdistribuary areas, consist of brackish water marsh and bays. In this and many other deltas, brackish water sediments and shells are a typical part of the sediments, which accumulate in association with their peats. Similarly, there are many tide-dominated deltas in the world, in these deltas tidal sediments and fossils are an integral part of their deltaic sediments. Therefore, there is no need to invoke a Global Flood to explain the presence of tidal deposits and organisms within deposits of a deltaic /coastal plain, as found at Joggins, as they are often a typical part of them. This is all basic, beginning geologic knowledge, of which anyone, who is unaware of this, is woefully ignorant in their understanding of geology. As pointed out by another geologist, who is working on an article about the Joggins polystrate fossils, the fossils found within deposits, interpreted to have been deposited within the floodplain of rivers, are all terrestrial in nature. They completely lack any fossil of either marine or brackish water origin as documented by Falcon-Lan et al. (2004) and Hebert et al. (2004). The brackish water fossils are restricted to specific intervals that have the physical characteristics of deltaic and bay sediments and the marine fossils are restricted to thin intervals, i.e. limestones, which consist of sediments having the physical characteristics of sediments deposited in nearshore environments. In the context of the physical characteristics of the sediments enclosing and the depositional cycles of which they are part of, there is nothing anomalous about the distribution of these fossils. The so-called "strong evidence" noted in Mr. Berg's "The "Fossil Forests" of Nova Scotia: A Review of the Literature" doesn't exist. Thus, the occurrence of marine beds, brackish water fossil, and tidal deposits interbedded with fluvial and deltaic sediments proved nothing in terms of a global flood. The so-called "strong evidence" presented in the so-call "review" by Berg is readily explained by noncatastrophic sea-level change resulting from glacial-interglacial cycles and tectonic subsidence. How this happened is discussed in detail by Falcon-Lang (2003) and different papers found in Pashin and Gastaldo (2004). References Cited: Anderson, J. B., And Fillon, R. F., 2004, Late Quaternaryand Stratigraphy of the Gulf of Mexico Margin. SEPM special Publication no. 79, Society for Sedimentary Geology, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Bassinger, J. F., 1987, Our 'Tropical' Arctic. CanadianGeographic. vol. 106, no. 6, pp. 28-37. Brian L. Hebert and John H. Calder, 2004, On the discoveryof a unique terrestrial faunal assemblage in the classic Pennsylvanian section at Joggins, Nova Scotia. Canadian Journal of Earth Science. vol. 41, pp. 247-254 Davies, S. J. and Gibling, M. R., 2003, Architecture ofcoastal and alluvial deposits in an extensional basin: the Carboniferous Joggins Formation of Eastern Canada. Sedimentology, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 415-439. Falcon-Lang, H. J., 2003, Late Carboniferous drylandtropical vegetation, in a dryland alluvial-plain setting, Joggins, Nova Scotia, Canada. Palaios, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 197-211. Falcon-Lang, H. J., Gibling, M. R., Calder, J. H., 2004.An early Pennsylvanian waterhole deposit and its fossil biota in a dryland alluvial plain setting, Joggins, Nova Scotia. Journal of the Geological Society of London. vol. 161, no.2, pp. 209-222. Lemonick, M. D., 1986, Unearthing a Frozen Forest: Arctictree stumps provide a glimpse of the distant past. Time. vol. 128, no. 12, p. 64. Pashin, J. C., and Gastaldo, R. A., 2004, SequenceStratigraphy, Paleoclimate, and Tectonics of Coal-Bearing Strata. AAPG Studies in Geology no.51, American Association of Petroleum Geology. Tulsa, Oklahoma. Tibert, Neil E., 1999a, Ostracodes and agglutinatedForaminifera as indicators of paleoenvironmental change in an Early Carboniferous brackish bay, Atlantic Canada. Palaios. vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 246-260 Tibert, Neil E., 1999b, Peat accumulation on a drownedcoastal braidplain; the Mullins Coal (Upper Carboniferous), Sydney Basin, Nova Scotia. Sedimentary Geology. vol. 128, no. 1-2, pp. 23-38. I want to thank another geologist and "unindicted coconspirator" for letting me "steal some of his thunder" and use ideas and references that he might use in future popular papers on the Joggins polystarte fossils and the subfossil trees of Axel Heiberg Island. Best Regards. BillHouston, Texas This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 10-24-2004 11:13 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bill Birkeland Member (Idle past 2552 days) Posts: 165 From: Louisiana Joined: |
Randy S wrote:
"However, with that said, after reading overmy paper, if you have any specific comments that you want to point out -- especially if you find anything that I say that is inaccurate, then please to contact me directly..." There are so many factual errors it is hard to know where to begin: In terms of polystrate fossils, the story about the polystrate whale consists entirely of misinformation that Young Earth, Velikovskian, and other catastrophists have been mindlessly repeating for a long time. At Addr.com .it is stated: "9. A "Whale" of a Fossil: Or should we say "a fossil of awhale?" It's true, but what is most interesting about it is how it was buried. In 1976, workers from the Dicalite division of Grefco inc. found the remains of a baleen whale entombed vertically in a diatomaceous earth quarry." "They've found fossils there before; in fact the machineryoperators have learned a good deal about them and carefully annotate any they find with the name of the collector, the date, and the exact place found. Each discovery is turned over to Lawrence G. Barnes at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. The Whale, however, is one of the largest fossils ever collected anywhere... (It) is standing on end ... and is being exposed gradually as the diatomite is mined. Only the head and a small part of the body are visible as yet. "The modern baleen whale is 80 to 90 feet long andhas a head of similar size, indicating that the fossil may be close to 80 feet long." 34,35"" First, the whale is not standing on end. Instead, it is tilted at an angle. Finally, the whale is tilted at an angle because the ocean floor, on which it came to rest and was buried, has been tilted at that angle by later folding. Thus, Randy's short article is utterly wrong about this fossil whale being a polystrate whale. The real story of this non-polystrate fossil whale can be found in "Whale of a Tale" at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html Best Regards, BillHouston, Texas Operation Air Conditionerhttp://www.operationac.com/ This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 10-24-2004 11:11 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RandyB Inactive Member |
I take it that you disagree with my conclusions.
That's OK. I don't agree with everything I read either. I am curious though as to what you think about the40 foot upright tree that I uncovered? The one that Dawson and Lyell didn't want the public to know about? The one that went through a coal seam? Or what did you think about the other upright tree thatis shown crossing a two foot thick coal seam? The one that is pictured on my Home Page at Earth Age – The Truth About Earth's Age? Or what did you think of all those upright trees thatI show that don't have any roots attached? Or the ones that Brown even admitted that didn't have roots attached: the ones that Dawson chose to ignore in his books? Or what did you think about the other Tree that Dawsondid depict (from the Sydney area) from Brown's writings -- (In Part Two of my paper) the one that was filled with White sandstone, yet surrounded above and below with sediments other than sandstone? Or what did you think of those Quotes that I have on mypage titled "More Flood Evidences" that tell us that there must have been a Worldwide Flood? Or how about the evidence I give that goes against theFlooding River scenario in favor of Marine influence one where the ocean swept over the land? You did read that part of my paper didn't you? It is in Part Two. I think it is the Section titled: "Evidence for Marine Influences" or something like that. Seriously Bill, You need to lighten up and maybe even (God Forbid) THANK MEfor looking a little deeper than what others have done. Perhaps it is just possible that the SAME OCEAN CURRENT THAT DEPOSITED THE MARINE SEDIMENTS IN THE COAL STRATA (also with Stigaria, and Lepidodendrons and Sigillaria) in Tennesee and Kentucky and Pensylvania was the same event that also deposted the strata in Nova Scotia??? Perhaps even the Grand Canyon as well. I also predict that in the next few years that there will be otherpapers published that support the same conclusions that I have come to. In fact, it is my hope that Geology students will look into this again for themselves and even challenge their Professors (especially if it turns out -- as I strongly suspect -- that they are wrong). I also hope that is OK with you. Or is there only one conclusion that you will accept? Good day, and Bless you all for searching out the truth. Randy Berg
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
You seem to have ignored most (to all) of what Bill posted.
You have not chance of learning or convincing anyone of anything with that approach. You were blown out of the water and, somehow, didn't seem to notice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RandyB Inactive Member |
I take it that you didn't like my paper?
Or my last message? Maybe if I were to agree with you then you would be happy? Would that make you happy? Don't you want people to come to their own conclusions? Oh, Now I see! You ONLY want people to come to YOUR conclusions? I suppose you also want me to believe that we "evolved" from life that began in a primordial slime pool? Happy Days are here again!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mikehager Member (Idle past 6488 days) Posts: 534 Joined: |
Randyb,
I realize this is off-topic, but I was nearly elated that someone had wondered into a field I actually know something about. One type of evidence you give on your page for the biblical flood is from comparative mythology. You correctly reference the fact that a universal flood is a common motif in myth. However, your conclusion that this must indicate an actual event is not valid. First, there are two kinds of floods in myth. The first is the primordial flood, symbolic of chaos, out of which order and the world are drawn. Some examples of this are: 1. The flood of Ymir's blood that washed over everything when Odin and his two brothers slew the giant and before they proceeded to build the nine worlds from his body. 2. Izanagi and Izanami looking down at the water covering the world and, wondering what was under it, stuck a spear or staff into it. The mud that dripped from it made the islands of Japan. 3. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Gen. 1:1, 1:2) So, care must be taken in declaring all flood myths to be the flood of Noah. Is the myth in question analogous to the chaotic pre-creative waters of Genesis or the later flood? There are myths more analogous to story of Noah. One that comes immediately to mind is the latter parts of the story of Pandora's Box, from Greek myth. Another is the brief mention in the tale of Gilgamesh of the history of Utnapishtim, who held the secret of immortality. He was granted immortality by the gods for being the survivor of a world-wide flood, which is very analogous to the flood of Noah. I read your page and could not resist, upon seeing the contents there regarding world myth, posting this. I apologize for being off-topic, but at least this concerns the flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: No, they were actually quite entertaining. Fiction, of course.
quote: Seem like you need to lighten up a bit, Randy. And maybe you could thank us for making you think harder about these things.
quote: Personally, I couldn't be happier than right now. You make evolution look unassailable.
quote: Is that a question or a statement? Actually, I don't care what your conclusions are.
quote: I don't care what you believe. Neither do I know how life began. All I can say for sure is that your understanding of science is pathetic.
quote: Again, thank you for providing the entertainment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Thanks for permission to disagree with you. I feel much better now.
quote: YOU uncovered it? Well, that changes EVERYTHING!
quote: THen why do they mention it in the quotes you reference?
quote: This is YOUR conclusion. And, let's see, how much credibility should we give to someone who claims Velikovsky as an authority?
quote: I do not see this. Where is it?
quote: Not much. I've seen this in modern forests. On the other hand, maybe there is a conspiracy to hide the truth. Did you ever follow up on those black helicopters camouflaged as pterodactyls during the Civil War?
quote: Randy, without having even seen the specimen, I can confidently say that it was NOT white sandstone.
quote: You mean Velikovsky? Not much.
quote: Didn't make sense. If you had some training and experience in geology, you would understand.
quote: Riiight. Bill needs to lighten up! Suuure. RAndy, I have read your next post. I can see that you are angry and frustrated. Face it, you have no credibility.
quote: Randy, are you reading your own posts befer submitting them? This is wishful geology on your part. It makes no sense at all. Do you mean the entire GC sequence?
quote: THe Great Randy sees all and knows all. Did you consult with Jean Dixon on this?
quote: As I said, "hopeful geology". That's all you've got going for you. Your interpretations have been shredded on this board and others and yet you blindly cling to your belief system rather than facts and evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4148 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Randy - i do to an extent feel for you. You clearly spend a great deal of time carefully selecting the quotes to support you "case".
To see Bill systematically and completely destroy your case in such a total manner must be very difficult for you. i think you have two choices 1) to retreat and show that your idea is scientifically bankrupt; or 2) to try and tackle some of the points raised with some well sourced evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RandyB Inactive Member |
Dear Charles,
Which references of mine did you not approve of? As far as me "selecting" certain quotes to prove my point: that is a common practice in this day and age. I also think your problem is not with my doing so, but rather with my conclusions. I also think I am right and therefore will NOT be changing anything with regard to my position. If you want to come over to my side, them I welcome you to do so. If you want to write a rebuttal to my paper then you are free to do so. Bill: IF the Geologists from the 1800's were wrong about Joggins,then so are the Geologists from the 1900's. I also think that the older papers are better than the modern ones because, at least, at that time there was a debate going on as to how these trees were enombed -- as a subsequent discussion of the facts (including much better and more detailed drawings that what appears in modern papers). Today most geologist who write on this subject just "assume" that what they have been told to believe by their professors is correct, and act like the debate is over -- and that they can't be wrong. Also, the quotes that I give for the Worldwide flood were not from Velikovski. They are quoted below. "Two American oceanographic vessels pulled from the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico several long, slender cores of sediment. Included in them were the shells of tiny one-celled planktonic organisms called foraminifera. While living on the surface, these organisms lock into their shells a chemical record of the tempera-ture and salinity of the water. When they reproduce, the shells are discarded and drop to the bottom. A cross-section of that bottom... carries a record of climates that may go back more than 100 million years. Every inch of core may represent as much as 1000 years of the earth's past."1 "The cores were analyzed in two separate investigations, by esare Emiliani of the University of Miami, and James Kennett of the University of Rhode Island and Nicholas Shackleton of Cambridge University. Both analyses indicated a dramatic change in salinity, providing compelling evidence of a vast flood of fresh water into the Gulf of Mexico. Using radiocarbon, geochemist Jerry Stripp of the University of Miami dated the flood at about 11,600 years ago." 1 To Emiliani, all the questions and arguments are minor beside the single fact that a vast amount of fresh melt water poured into the Gulf of Mexico. 'We know this,' he says, 'because the oxygen isotope ratios of the foraminifera shells show a marked temporary decrease in the salinity of the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. It clearly shows that there was a major period of flooding from 12,000 to 10,000 years ago... There was no question that there was a flood and there is no question that it was a universal flood 1. "Emiliani's findings are corroborated by geologists Kennett and Shackleton, who concluded that there was a 'massive inpouring of glacial melt water into the Gulf of Mexico via the Mississippi River system. At the time of maximum inpouring of this water, surface salinities were...reduced by about ten percent."1 The Black Sea Speaks: "Science... has found evidence for a massive deluge that may ... have inspired Noah's tale. About 7,500 years ago, a flood poured ten cubic miles of water a day--130 times more than flows over Niagara Falls - from the Mediterranean Sea into the Black Sea, abruptly turning the formerly freshwater lake into a brackish inland sea."2 "In 1993, William Ryan and Walter Pitman of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory dug up cores of sediment from the bottom of the Black sea. The cores showed that the sea's outer margins had once been dry land, indicating it had been two-thirds its present size. Furthermore, over the entire sea bottom was a thin, uniform layer of sediment that could only have been deposited during a flood. The researchers also found that within that layer saltwater mollusks appear, all from the Mediterranean and all datingfrom around 7600 years ago." 2 Could Worldwide Orderly = A Worldwide Flood? "Such a hypothesis would require assumption of a highly unlikely pattern of faunal migrations, where swarms of species of Manticoceras are followed, everywhere at the same distance and the same time interval, by swarms of species of Cheiloceras, the two waves preserving their separate identities on a staggered mass migration around the world ... without evolutionary changes and without ever becoming mixed..." "It would be easy to repeat this investigation for almost every critical zone fossil or fauna throughout the geological column for hundreds, perhaps thousands of... cases. The conclusions would be the same. In the words of Jeletsky (1956) we would have to 'invoke a miracle', if, for example, we were to assume anything but world-wide contemporaneous deposition for each of the 55 ammonite zones of the Jurassic. Not all of them occur everywhere, but wherever two or more are found in superposition they occur in the same order. 3 Arkell (1957, p. L112) 4 summarized the picture of ... Mesozoic ammonoids as follows: 'Evolution is above all very uneven. Certain periods were outstandingly productive of new and verile forms which often seem to have sprung into existence from nowhere... and to have become dominant almost simultaneously over a large part of the world... How such sudden multiple creations were brought about is a task for the future to determine.'" 3,4 1. Warshofsky, Fred, "Noah, The Flood, the Facts," Readers Digest,Sept. 1977, pp.132-134. 2. Svitil, Kathy A., "Forty Days and Forty Nights, More or Less," Discover, Jan. 1999, p. 69. See also: "Is Noah story result of Black Sea flood?" by John Noble Wilford, New York Times News Service, San Diego Union--Tribune, Wed., Jan. 13, 1999, p. E-4. 3. Teichert, Curt, "Some Biostratigraphical Concepts," Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, Vol. 69, Jan.1958, p.111. 4. Arkell, W. J.,1957, "Introduction to Mesozoic Ammonoidea," pp.81-129 in Moore, R. C., Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part L: Geological Society of America and Univ. of Kansas Press, 490 pp. 727, Green Forest, AZ 72638, p.239 Good Day to all.Randy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024