|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 6277 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Crand Canyon Tracks Were Not Formed During a Worldwide Flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Could you also let me know which strata mark the onset of, peak period of, and end of the flood? Thanks Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: You have no such model occurring at time scales needed to rescue a young earth
quote: JM: You really need to read the literature before re-inventing the wheel. There are several key points. One is that faster spreading alone will raise sea level. This is not per 'delayed subduction' due to frictional force per se, but rather due to the fact that subduction is occurring at a slightly slower rate than spreading (see the Cretaceous for example and papers by Larson in the 1990's). Second, all subduction and all spreading and any motion on the globe is subject to frictional forces. I fail to see the 'great TB revelation' unless stating the obvious is a revelation? I thought you had a Ph.D. in physics and you just now seemed to realize that frictional forces occur within the earth lol! Finally, whose sea level curves are you looking at?
quote: Eustatic sea level curves are global, yes. Not all sea-level curves are eustasy curves and global does not mean 'covering all land'. This is important to point out so that the unasuming reader sees the word 'global' and thinks aha!
quote: JM: Sadly, there is no global flood and there certainly is no global flood as you want it to happen described in the Bible. Once again, you have to compromise the very book you deem infallible to fit your worldview.
quote: JM: No doubt it seems 'quite reasonable' to you because you've rationalized your faith, your science and the bible to make it so. Blissful ignorance is not good science. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Of course, you completely ignore the boiling problem, the shallow sea problem and many others when you assume such an event. Runaway subduction and rapid drift finds no support in the geologic record (sorry). For example, paleobiogeography gives us information on how certain species are related to each other and the paleogeography at the time. The close association of trilobites (for example) would not be possible in a rapidly changing geography.
quote: JM: You're full of ideas you consider novel. Most of them have been discussed (some dismissed) many years ago. As a source, you cite introductory textbooks. I say, go ahead and try to publish your ideas without proper background research. You'll be surprised at the response. Tell you what, if you can somehow focus on sea-level changes in the southern continents, you can submit it to the journal Gondwana Research. I am the editor and will send it out for review.
quote: JM: Well, if you are so sure based on the intro textbooks that you've read, then please submit your manuscript.
quote: JM: Oh, I see you're willing to spout off a 'new hypothesis' before examining the relevant literature or trying to figure out what work on sea-level has been conducted in the past? I swear TB, sometimes I think you're pulling our leg about being a Ph.D.'ed' scientist. If a graduate student came to you with a brand new hypothesis and had never bothered to examine the literature (beyond an intro text)--or bothered to find original sources and explanations on the subject--would you encourage him/her to publish the idea?
quote: JM: However, in the Cretaceous the reason for elevated sea level is due to increased spreading rates (see Larson, 1991) for example. Furthermore, 85% (an incorrect number anyway! the real value is ~40%) is not 100% that you require for the flood of Noah. The bible said the water covered ALL the EARTH not 85% (or 40%).
quote: JM: This is a fantasy and easily countered. Why is there marine strata located at one of the highest elevations in the world? It IS being eroded, but it is still there. You also need to learn about how sea-level curves are generated as your post demonstrates a certain naivete about the caveats and issues related to generating sea level curves.
quote: JM: Or look in the Himalayas and the Tethyan-age marine strata that must be traversed as one climbs Mt. Everest. Why were these not eroded first?
quote: JM: Actually, it's an accurate statement based on 150+ years of work by creationist geologists and modern geologists alike. To say that it is misleading is downright dishonest. Cheers Joe Meert [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 10-12-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: You also completely ignore the shallow sea problem, the mechanism for generating rapid drift and it's effects on biogeography.
quote: JM: No, I am talking about being able to correlate global trilobite distribution with paleogeography during the Neoproterozoic and Early Cambrian. Rapidly changing geography would not allow such high resolution paleogeography to be obtained in the rapid drift scenario.
quote: JM: You're right, you have not yet even managed to get the ingredients together.
quote: JM: LOL! I'm not??? Guess you don't bother to read the literature. I am almost exclusively a plate tectonics guy.
quote: JM: A LOT MORE? You can't even find basic literature on the subjects you argue (including your statement about me not being a plate tectonics guy)!
quote: JM: I should say (a) MOST definitely!! You don't even know the basics yet.
quote: JM: There is no relevance that has not already been stated.
quote: JM: Once again, I find it most absurd that you are unable to use the library to find the pertinent literature. You come on here and spout off hypothesis after hypothesis and then claim that since you can't find it in an intro text, it must be a revelation to you. Such poor scholarship is atypical of most Ph.D. scientists.
quote: JM: Fair enough, but the correct figure would then be ~80%. Having said that, you assumed they are based on actual data. I am asking you what data and how are those data utilized to generate the curves?
quote: JM: But, of course you are wrong. For example, the Appalachian mountains do contain marine strata that is correlative with marine strata elsewhere in the midcontinent.
quote: JM: So your hypothesis is based upon an incomplete understanding of how sea level curves are generated and how they might vary? LOL!
quote: JM: According to you they should all be eroded.
quote: JM: No, I look at the data afresh on a daily basis and spend time generating new data! So, you have no support for such a statement. I also did not say there could not be a complete covering of the continents by the ocean. It is a question of when, how and why. So far, you have not been able to support your 'hypothesis' with workable answers to any of those simple questions. Until you can, you are just blowing smoke. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Well, you sure wasted a lot of bandwidth before finding the information. Unfortunately for you, there has been more recent work than Haq and much more detailed studies on sea level falls and rises. I am also amazed at how poorly you've thought about your own ideas with regard to sea level fall and rise. Have you considered the time involved to generate the features you think you see in the sea level curves? We're not talking about draining a tub here.here is information on the shallow sea problem THE DEPTHS OF THE OCEANS I've posted this before so your memory must be failing. You also will not generate very good sea level curves during a Baumgardner flood. as for the paleobiogeography, you might want to look at Paleogeography & Biogeography in the Neoproterozoic: Some Hints about Rodinia Cheers Joe Meert PS: Take your time, try to learn a bit more about the subject before you respond. If you choose not to take your time, you will continue to look silly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: TB, what sort of scientist goes around making 'hypothesis' after 'hypothesis' before trying to get a handle on the basic information out there? You never cease to amaze me by both claiming to have a Ph.D. and then conducting sophomoric research on a subject. As one Ph.D. to another, that is very poor scholarship and you should know better. There are many factors that go into changing sea level through time. You have to first learn the many and varied mechanisms for sea level change and then you can speculate on the many and varied forms of sea level curves. You want a global flood and are simply accepting anything that might get you to that point whether you truly understand it or not. Again, very lousy scholarship on the part of a Ph.D. I've offered you a venue for publication, but it requires that you spend some time thinking and learning about the problem before submission. Why not give it a try? Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: No accusations made. I made observations. You post many (if not all) of your geologic hypotheses without examining the relevant literature. The fact that you did not even know the reference for the sea level curves that you were yakking about is evidence for my observation.
quote: JM: Exactly what I am asking you to do!!
quote: JM: you've already stated your bias quite clearly and the fact that you don't bother to look up the relevant literature before spouting off your 'theories' is evidence enough of poor scholarship. BAsically, you want us to do your legwork for you. What would you tell your graduate student if he/she asked you do conduct all the background research for their thesis? We hold you to a higher standard because you claim to be a Ph.D.'ed scientist. Cheers Joe Meert [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 10-17-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]Joe Interesting how you ignored my science question? My statement that generated this series of posts is actually correct. You are simply introducing red-herrings Joe I have to say. I don't know how you treat these discussions but I treat these just as I treat talking shop at the departmental coffee table. You seem to be treating them like a court case.
[/QUOTE] JM: I treat you like the scientist you claim to be. Since you obviously have difficulty researching a topic then you reap what you sow. You have demonstrated poor research scholarship in geology for several months now and hope to deflect that by pretending you are 'just doing coffee talk'. Coffee talk is fine, quit making proclamations. As to your 'scientific questions', try phrasing them scientifically. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Your questions have been answered here repeatedly and links have been given several times. Are we now also supposed to repeat ourselves in the interest of enhancing your short term memory? Look, TB there are NO word games going on here. You marched into the forum, claimed academic credentials (whilst hiding behind a pseudonym) and have since proceeded to post a series of sophomoric 'hypotheses' without conducting the relevant background research. Many here (Randy, wehappy, edge, myself and others) have played your little games, but you simply move on to another topic and ignore anything that was previously discussed. That's poor scholaship on your part and I have sincere doubts now as to the veracity of your stated academic credentials. I know of no scientist who would make so many absurd statements and have such trouble finding the proper references. Basically, if you want scientific discussion on a topic then for gods sake have the intellectual fortitude to formulate your ideas and questions clearly. I will continue to hold you to a higher standard because of your claims. If you are unwilling to live up to a modest level of scientific rigor, then your posts are not worth discussing. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: No, you've shown a pipe dream. No data. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: I am a geologist who has (a) read the relevant literature; (b) looked at a whole bunch of rocks and (c) found your explanations sophomoric. What you need to show, if you want any respect at all, is that you know how to research the subject and that you understand the most basic elements of the theory you wish to depose. So far, not much substance amongst all your rhetoric. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024