glaciers and the flood

quote:

---

Many phenomena that have not yet been adequately explained occurred in the latest period of geologic time. The Pleistocene is part of post-flood time in a creation-flood paradigm. This period was

---

To Joe etc;
But this part I dont think is in any different question than WHY we have not an elevated science post Croizat's notion of Ptolemic Biogeogrpahy. THIS IS WHEN most of the confusioning notions arise in my thinking about change at least. With all the fusions I cant really yet have a sense of where is before or after the various opnions on the flood whether a small one in fact as some in NY purported or that heard of in faith environments.

I dont know which I am looking most @
For me, I do not know which pic I am looking MORE at. That is prerequisite to reading much in the Croizat method. I might have misplaced the notion of the creationary view of the ice aga in this part so for me I get stuck somewhere near INNSBRUCK. This might be only due to my lack of knowledge of the area so perhaps a European has an opninion. So when I say I am confused this is indeed a limit in my thinking and hopeing that some other creationist has already written something that will turn this light bulb on in my mind’s eye. I can say that the word why I use IS NOT anything political as just came up today on NPR when the former gov of NJ was interviewed and the question was put if religion had anything to do with science ( climate change study, stem cells, teaching evolution). The dialog there answered with somewhat of a why but the governor was clear to keep science out of it. The why I referred to does have some play in the same word philosophy only but is academic at the point or place where one might think the difference of good will and free will. But again making any freedom change a group willing goodly into freeness would NOT be by legislation nor by EVC fiat nor need it occur to necessarily have science progress. The issue probably arises only because students seem to have lost the ability to think to (or from) physio-theology. So if I had to guess why I could not say it would be because I would like to read a creationist on the ice — age have me think FROM physcio theology not only to ethical theology. It might be that I just didn’t look hard enough.So to rephrase — I was suggesting that the creationist research on the ice age is in a place where evolutionist research needs to be if it is ever to try to get beyond the NZ’s approach to Croizat’s methodical investigation. So I don’t see a scientific reason against creationist work as long as noncreationscience does not try to explicate with more tools continuity of simulations. But for the poltical type thought on NPR that is likely causing an inhibition of society moving in this direction. And I have experienced in the past that the philosophy that prevents this is the feeling that Jacob junk yard mentality IS the way that biological change occurred. I know this is not the case by reading Agassiz on the ice berg but I would need to show Hutchinson mistaken as to beetles first and THAT latter not the former is what also has me bogged down culturally as to what I might by my own merits be able to accomplish.It is some what hard to read in the pictures where I noted in yellow.
Croizat had said,

quote:

---

It would seem to be conclusively clear that so far as our analysis has progressed we have not met evidence speaking for the "Ice Ages" in quality of a momentous biogeographic factor.

---

I really only tried to say the same thing in my own words. Evos would disagree with this in general, I would suspect. There is no doubt the creationary veiw DID "speak" for the ice age and this would be taken by some evo as NOT a good thing. I read it the other way around, but before I can ACTUALLY get all the way around this text I need to see more in his pictures. There may be a difference between us, but he died the year before I got to Cornell. I would like to see an abreviated version of panbiogeography come out and if the creationary view of the ice age spurs us onto this, I say, all for the better! Thus without this qualitative "factor" I figured we still had his pre-Darlington ptolemic biogeography despite SOME quantification by New Zelanders conta AMNH. If Gibbs' function minimzation was the cause of the meausre then one might proceed without the creation account but so far I see more c than e activity despite the opposite being the case here in this thread so far.

TC edited his post at about the same time I sent. I only had said that he was correct, that there was *all^ to this post. I myself had to do a system restart so someone else is probably tryin to "listen" in or I am just as paranoid as my more computer literate brother is.

I fail to see how this is somehow a bad thing. It seems good that, very good in fact, that there would be an alternative in which a catastrophic fundament finds the foundation of the alternative. Your explanation of the "classification" in thrms of marine, not marine and transitional, has cleared up my query. Thanks! I was stuck on life and did not see that there was another topographical solution I had not provisioned for. Thanks again!!

Interesting too-Joe can it be fairly certain that the bulbuous nature of the propounded burrow across layers is not caused by a geomorphic process as in the white area at below what looks to have been what was called the "burrow"? I notice some structure albeit of smaller dimension in the lower left. Can the good geologist confidently assert that that is of a different cause than say phil the hedgehogs' ancestor' niche construction? I was hopeing that negative entropy was an existant enough concept to entail a determinate judgement on those kinds of observations but Georgi Gladyshev has disabused me of that kind of thinking.i dont have that expertise. Just a question if you have the time to answer - no pressure -This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-23-2005 15:17 AM