Buddika & TrueCreation's Flood Topic - Parallel Thread

For those who care to comment on Buddika or My content, please post them in here, this would be appreciated. Thanks ------------------

"Rubbish. There is no way to tell if the soil is of that age. According to TC himself, the soil on this site could have been washed away two days earlier and then redeveloped by the dawn of the Cambrian. All we can really say is that the development of this soil was interrupted by the superdeposition of the Lamotte Sand. Just as Buddika will find, TC cannot comprehend this simple fact and will repeat his misunderstanding indefinitely."
--Possibly, thought the answer would be easily indicative, given some characteristics. Your hypothesis is no more tenable than mine with what information we have. You will have to show me that characteristics of the Cambrian sediments directly underlying the paleosol indicate erosion to a degree that would satisfy your hypothesis.
--It is possible to date paleosols, it is just difficult.--I won't diliberatelly repeat this misunderstanding as I have stated it. It will, however, continue to be support that I may interpret it as a highly likely pre-flood soil, given its geologic position.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 11-30-2002]

"What a howler, TC. You're killing me! Did you notice that there are marine sedimentary rocks being deposited on continental crust today? So, where is the flood?"
--Like I said, it is evidence for the flood, though does nothing to say that it adds up to or say that the flood did happen."Buddika, I'm not sure that this is good advice. Look where it got TC! I'm afraid you will go backwards in stead of forward"
--I said what I said because he is trying to say that a big celestial bucket of 'muddy sediments' were thrown on the earth so that there could be some degree or another of granulometric distribution throughout the whole of the geo column, this logic of his is ridiculous. He wont release his grip on his bath tub strawman."Oh, sure That's convenient! Let's forget about all of the mountains, especially the ones that show different ages of formation."
--Elaborate?"So, TC, which Cambrian organisms did mammals speciate from? Remember you have only a couple of thousand years to do this."
--None, Mammals speciated from those whose burials were higher in the geologic column, I believe that would be the Triassic+."Really?! In second grade! I have to apologize to you. I didn't realize that you were that advanced. No wonder I can't understand a thing you say"
--What isn't understandable about what I said here? It was a comment made in considering the post as a whole regards to his assertions about sedimentation."Well, there's a reason for that. But I don’t think you want to hear it. But the 16-year old part, yeah, I believe that!"
--The reason for that is because he's not making me do any research and I don't think he's made one assertion which would have me say that I've 'learned something' from it. Besides my doosie on the Arctic ice caps, but even then..--Post #12-->
"Wrong. There are plenty of locations and times where sedimentation was not occurring. Therefor, according to your analysis, the flood is falsified. Thank you TC."
--I don't remember me saying anything about sedimentation being a constant."Can you elaborate on this? It would seem that your rebuttal here is very poor. You should have come up with some facts. Actually, B is correct on this."
--Should I assume you are reading his posts? I would be extremely surprised if anyone were to think it evident he has read any hard geologic text. All it seems he's read is every anti-creationist article known to human kind. He knows little of his terminology and how various geologic processes are carried out, only that he's heard that the effects do not show a global flood. How should he expect that I should take his word for it when this is all he's done.------------------

"Hunh? You said before the Cambrian sediments overlay the soil... Which is it? And, yes I will guarantee that the materials under the soil are an erosional surface."
--Oops. I would also, a pedogenic erosional feature. I mean to say as the Cambrian above the paleosol, rather than "underlying". Sorry about that."Yes and I have shown you one. "
--Where at? And if you have, why is it impossible to know its age?"You cannot however, support the assertion that it is a 1 billion year old soil... If you ever took the time to study geology you would understand this."
--Sounds like you have the data which says that it isn't? I'd like to see it, since you have so much confidence that this is 'yet another' opportunity to show that I don't know anything about my geology right? You seem to enjoy attempting this at times.
--No mater the age of the paleosol whether it be 1Ga, or 700Mya, my suggestion as it being a preflood soil isn't very hindered.------------------

I know the terminology from which I have spoken in the thread very well. Of which he has shown he knows little to nothing. Can you support your assertion that I am doing no better than Buddika? Please don't tell me that he is actually being reasonable... You are reading the posts are you not? They are utterly ridiculous.--Unfortunately I just got finished throwing off some steam at the weight bench from accidentally deleting the content in the reply box for summarizing his inconsistencies in his last post about 3/4th the way through. Very little of it has any credibility to it and is not resultant from great misunderstandings of geologic principles and concepts which he has not grasped and shows no desire to in the future.
--I mean sure, even if the global flood is easily falsified by various observations, he has not done a good job at it even in its littlest degree.------------------

"TC, when a process (such as soil devlopment) is truncated by another process (such as the deposition of beach sands), the only thing you can say about the age of the original process is that it is no younger than the process that truncated it. This is a dating method. It is a relative dating method. If a soil is overlain by the Lamotte Sand, then we can only say that it is older than deposition of the Lamotte if only by a short period. The other thing we can say is that if the soil is developed on Proterozoic rocks it must be at least somewhat younger than the substrate that it exists on, especially since an unknown amount of material must have been eroded from those rocks. Okay, this gives you a range of ages. However, since we know that soils continually develop and are slowly washed away by wind, water and soil creep, the younger age would be far more likely. Furthermore, since there is a hiatus in the geological record, one might also assume or suggest the possiblility that there might have been several erosional events and that several soil horizons might have developed and eroded away at this location and only the youngest one preserved. I don't know how much more clear I can be on this. "
--I understand all of this. I can agree that my initial representation of it as being a 1 Ga is a large summarization, but that doesn't defeat my initial arguments regarding the paleosol. What you've explained here is a story without data. Its what do you call it, A 'just so' story. Whether it is 'preferred', or not, simply isn't good enough."I have an understanding of relative dating and geological processes which you have not had the opportunity to acquire."
--I haven't acquired it in the same setting as you have[et. college lectures], but it has been acquired from the many initiatives of mine regarding geochronology."True, but it does expose your lack of understanding of basic processes and suggests that you are easily swayed by professional creationists and popular myths. "
--My analysis was compltely free from references to creationist material so this isn't applicable.--I also sensed from your last post that you apparently see that my age is quite easily indicative by my posting content? I was just wondering that since all 16 year olds know what I know about geology or even biology for that matter, you could direct me to where I could find some? They would be great for additions to an organization me and a friend recently founded at http://www.oysi.promisoft.net its neutral so the POV is of no significance. The only bias is a bias in favour of good information.------------------

"Oh, you mean where you said that geochronologists never use the term 'apparent' when talking about radiometric ages?¹ Or when you stated that 'in-place' really means 'might have been transported?'²"
--[1] - We settled this back where this 'inconsistency' started, in the paleosols thread (which I will continue when I get my comp problems and make progress on my current projects) and mainly in this post:http://EvC Forum: Paleosols -->EvC Forum: Paleosols--I would still very much like to see what you have to say about this 'certain age' phenomenon.
--[2] - This was also settled, in situ means in place of origin or deposition, you just have to read it in context. As I used it in my context, it could have been both. In the context of Yuretich, I never argued that he probably meant it as a place of deposition. That would have been a misunderstanding, but the misunderstanding never occurred."I have said only that you have manuevered Buddika into a discussion where he is not as acquainted as you with the literature. I can readily tell that he is a layman. I can also tell that you are a layman, but that you put on airs of knowing what you are talking about."
--What do you mean 'but that you put on airs of knowing what you are talking about'? All I am doing in that thread is showing myself and the board for my own satisfaction (though I am fully open for a deeper delve into a geologic discussion, it just hasn't happened yet and apparently should not be expected) that his arguments against flood geomechanics are foolish and that him saying that 'he knows' the flood couldn't happen is just an argument from his personal incredulity[thus void of credibility]."It was not my point to provide data. It was my point to show that your scenario was logically erroneous and did not consider some very important possibilities (you might say that your statement was a 'just-so' story). So, what you said was that the soil remained in-place for a Ga... no transport, no erosion, and no continuos development of new soil. Does this really sound plausible to you?"
--True, I can admit to this. Basically it was an attempt similar to Joz's back in post #4 here. An attempt at having you address it after seeing it as insignificant for a couple posts."Right. I will remember that the next time that someone accuses mainstream scientists of bias."
--What do you mean? Mainstream scientists do have a bias, and that bias is the 'mainstream bias'. I don't know what would be wrong with saying that, I have a Young Earth bias, you have an old earth bias. My recent readings out of The origin and evolution of the Solar system - Woolfson, 2000, supports that there is a tendency for scientists to attempt to avoid adaptation to new theories which are effective at altering comprehensive theories in science. Not only is it indicative in the text, it was directly admitted.------------------

"You specifically stated that geochronologists do not refer to 'apparent ages'. This is false."
--Not really and certainly not verbatim, I said, "...We certainly don't say 'this zircon apparently has an age of blank['], or some such." When I said this I wasn't saying that all ages were technically not apparent, just that when they refer to them, they don't say that the age is 'apparently' something."You also said that because Yuretich used the term 'in place,' that he really meant that prior transport was a possibility."
--Wrong."I was talking in YOUR frame of reference.¹ In other words, what you want is a certain age rather than an apparent age.² As I remember now, you also did not understand the meaning of the error estimates on radiometric ages, either.³ I really think that your criticism of Buddika on this is hypocritical and sophomoric.⁴"
--[1] - Were you? You stated that "At this point, it became quite clear that you are confusing 'absolute age' with 'certain age', which is complete misunderstanding of geochronology." This seems to indicate that since I don't know about some phenomena of 'certain age' as opposed to relative or absolute age that I then have a 'misunderstanding of geochronology'.
--[2] - I want a 'certain age'? Again explain what you mean by 'certain age'? Evidently you want me to give you a dating method which gives you a date which you could assume is more accurate than radiometric.. I hope this isn't what your saying.
--[3] - Nope, I know all about 'Error Brackets' or 'Error Bars'. This was also cleared up in that very same post:

quote:

---

You keep compounding your error! Please, it is getting painful to watch! Those are not approximations, they are limits of analytical error."
--I do not have, nor claim to understand all of the geological literature, its just that nothing you have illustrated says that I don't understand this area of it. I have even often made reference to these error bars. I said 'approximation' because that is what it is, an attempt to 'come close to' the actual age of the sample.

---

--[4] - I don't think I remember making an assertion such as this in this, but maybe it was in the initial related thread? If I made the assertion, I'm pretty sure that there was good reason."Yes, and this was wrong. Unless you intentionally wish to confuse the readers."
--Nothing I have said regarding this was wrong in the thread.."Correct. You used it in the context that he might not have offered enough of data to support his point and it was open to interpretation. He adamantly refused this possibility."
--No this is incorrect, I never said that 'he' might not have offered enough data, I said that the link source didn't.. I believe I have made this clearly known quite a few times.
--You say, "Then you were not clear." But this is wrong:

quote:

---

[Post #25]
--I haven't bent any facts presented in the specimen ridge link. I have, however, pointed out its extreme lack in relevant detail.

​

[Post #30]
--Hey very well may have! I don't doubt this, what I am arguing is that the 'link' source is entirely poor in its information and data content, I can't say this regarding the text Yuretich wrote as I have not seen it. The only thing which seems to be illustrated in the link source is the conclusions Yuretich exclaimed.

​

[Post #45]
"Because you are the one who said his description should have been more complete to support his statement that the trees were untransported."
--No, not Yuretich's description. The link sources summarization of Yuretich's descriptions:

​

http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/forests.htm

​

[Post #45]
--Yes, the evidence which we know of does support the interpretation of transport. Though there is further falsifiability included in the rest of the data which should be in Yuretich's source, and is not illustrated in the link.

---

--I have made this more than sufficiently clear."Well, let's see. Yuretich, a professor of sedimentology is wrong in his interpretation of the Specimen Ridge trees.¹ Joe Meert, another professor who has devoted his entire career to geolgoy is also wrong, or worse yet, misunderstand a number of geological concepts.² Now you ridicule Buddika because he does not follow some of your convoluted logic using fairly advanced jargon. Yes, I would say that you THINK you know what you are talking about.³"
--[1] - Never said this, I just said I'm not going to accept the sloppy representation of his work and simply credulously accept it as that. Credible scientific initiatives just don't work that way. This is also something I have pointed out in repetition in the paleosols thread.
--[2] - I would be a fool to say that Joe Meert is 'Wrong' in areas, though I have made it clear that I question that his conclusions regarding various geodynamic operations will be my conclusion as well. I respect Meert in his knowledge and enjoy talking with him on various subjects he specializes in (where has he been by the way?), Its just that if I don't have the same level of understanding he has in some topic then why should I accept a conclusion drawn from that data which I do not fully understand? You know I am young and vernal in scientific experience, I have more than enough years ahead of me to look towards to make those conclusions, different or not.
--[3] - I would be more than happy to be more considerate with him regarding this, though he has not asked for it and has not made it evident by his sarcastic attitude. He has made it evident that he wants to be compared rather than differentiated with his creationist opponents, no matter their intelligence simply because they are creationists. If he really wants me to explain things to him, he should avoid continuously and repetitively attempting to point out my utter supidity, imbecility, sophist, and 'wannabe' attitude and argumental approaches."Nevertheless, Buddika is correct in his conclusions regarding the flood myth."
--Only in the same way Hovind takes up YECism and that I agree with it. The guy is a foolish charlatan, similarly Buddika and your comment here would be an analog."Why have you not taken some of the lessons that you have been given here and asked more questions or expanded on the ideas? To the contrary, you have rationalized/defined them away and ignored explanations of radiometric dates etc., and then stubbornly defended your errors. I seriously doubt your desire to have a meaningful discussion and would rather simply bash another layman."
--The only reason I am currently 'bashing another layman' is because I am getting my comp fixed right now and to post to the more sophisticated topics out right now would be tedious to handle in my lack of resources and software. You may not be aware, though I invest extensive amounts of time and form and carry out tedious though productive inquiries regarding that which is posted in this forum. I do this because I enjoy delving into topics. The topic of paleosols may be a good example off the top of my head. If all goes well, limestone origin and formation will be also. I don't defend my terminology and my assertions with a 'stubbornness'."My point was that I doubt your analysis was free of input by creationist material. It is not possible to come the conclusions you have without some kind of mythological basis. "
--Well if you want to turn it into that, sure it is partially derived from a 'creationists material'. Since I've read the book of Genesis before. What I mean is that my initial remark that 'my suggestion as it being a preflood soil isn't very hindered.' was not derived from readings of creationists material (eg. ICR, AiG, CRS, etc.), I also don't remember Genesis describing flood sedimentary boundaries.------------------

"You are dancing, TC."
--I'm dancing? All I'm doing is responding to your assertions against mine. What I have found is that whether I could have been even slightly more clear on what I said or not, your attempts to refute what I've said are misleading and/or misrepresenting what I've said."TC:When I said this I wasn't saying that all ages were technically not apparent, just that when they refer to them, they don't say that the age is 'apparently' something.A-one and-a-two!"
--But it is true isn't it."Okay, you implied that since he didn't specifically mention the lower parts of the trunks not being abraded then they permitted the interpretation of being prior-transported, even though Yuretich expressly said that they showed no such evidence and are 'in-place.' This means that you basically want to apply your own facts in the absence of a description."
--No this still isn't right. I didn't say that since he didn't, I said because the source which we both know of doesn't. I have not commented on Yuretich's work in this way. You did read the last half of my whole last post didn't you?
--I don't want to apply my own facts because of the absence (glad you attest that it is in fact absent), though I will suggest what may be there and what it would mean. Even still, the possibilities regarding abrasion will not contradict the conclusion of Yuretich, and may not have much impact as to mine either. The data should be looked at nonetheless.
--Also, I gave Yuretich an E-mail quite a while ago and haven't received a response as of yet. How did you get a response within the day? I would still like to see the context of his e-mail for my own satisfaction."Nonsense, I am saying what I meant to say. You want a certain age because you cannot handle uncertainty. You want a supreme authority to tell you the age of the rocks."
--I see what you mean then now. Even though this isn't true. I am not asking for something more accurate than radioisotopic dating."No. This is what you will accept because you do not understand the premises under which radiometric ages are derived. You would rather have it written in the bible. "
--Your arguments are not showing that I do not understand this. And you know that latter part isn't true."Just as I have been saying. You do not have a command of the geological literature. The error brackets have little to do with the accuracy of the apparent age. They refer to the analytical error only."
--What do you think I mean't by saying, "I said 'approximation' because that is what it is, an attempt to 'come close to' the actual age of the sample." Nothing you've said is contradicting anything I've said."Maybe not this in particular but geological terminology in general."
--So your telling me that when you said, "I really think that your criticism of Buddika on this is hypocritical and sophomoric." What did you mean? It seems that your trying to tell me that since he doesn't understand the terminology that my pointing out this fact was immature and hypocritical?-------------------

"I mean what I said. Your criticism of Buddika for lack of familiarity with geological terms is sophomoric and hypocritical."
--Sophomoric? How was it sophomoric? He is accusing me of believing something he things is easily falsified, has been falsified, and is completely ridiculous. whether a claim as this is veracious to any degree, he has not deduced this, he simply is parroting the words of others. He then continues his accusations against me that I am ignorant, stupid, narrow-minded etc. because I 'don't understand' that this is true. He has put himself in the position to be compared, not differentiated. And hypocritical? Could you support this one? I think I understand the geologic terminology which is being spoken in that thread well."Please amplify. What oceans, and how deep? I know of no corals living in the deep sea basins."
--Ahermatypic corals are found in deep cold waters."Perhaps you can give us an example of a living Arctic coral reef. "
--Couldn't give you a reef type which grow in arctic regions, didn't say I could though either. Scleractinin corals live in temperate, Arctic and Antarctic waters though."Arctic an Antarctic would provide ideal environments for corals?¹ And what do you mean by 'on top of continents?' Remember your surges? How do you expect corals to survive on top of mountains in between surges? This is utterly silly even according to your own model.²"
--[1] - Translocation of corals toward the more temperate/arctic/antarctic regions would amount to less overall temperature extremes. Vardiman suggests that Polar bottom waters would be much warmer than currently (of course) 16-17.5^oC.
--[2] - I didn't necessarily say they would survive on mountain ranges. They would survive relatively on the continents as general global eustatic levels exponentially rose, much of which may have become deposited and buried. As waters abated, coral would get washed out as well."Really? What about radiometic ages? You seem confused once again."
--You forgot the part where I said it was appearance of age. The point I was making is that if the flood happened, there is expected to be no method for dating events, only principles of superposition and other such relative dating methods.--[Edit] - I find it odd to see that whenever an ill-informed YEC comes in and starts to parrot his/her blather around and I counter him with criticism, its always 'Go TC', 'Congrads for a great post TC', or 'Your learning TC!'. Though when I begin to criticize the ill-informed evo, I am shunned, scrutinized with every inconsistency [correct or not], and immediately abhorred as if I were a scientific rebel.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 12-14-2002][This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 12-14-2002]

--Sorry, I'm going to make this a bit brief out of frustration, this is my 3rd attempt at writing a response without it being spontaneously deleted.."Because you are pretending to understand the subject. "
--So which one is it? Subject or terminology?"I repeat, what oceans and how deep?"
--In a general understanding of ahermatypic corals, it is a global correlation. They are found all over deep ocean basins. Scleractinian corals for instance, live in temperate, arctic, and Antarctic waters, which are also the principal contributors to reef structure. Depth is of little significance seeing as there is no factor of light penetration."What the heck is 'temperate arctic water?' And where do accumulations of such corals build up limestone deposits?"
--I didn't say 'temperate arctic water', I said "..live in temperate, Arctic and Antarctic waters". This is referring to global latitudinal localities.
--Are you bringing up coral limestone deposits now or were you trying to argue this earlier? Speaking of coral deposits, were no longer talking about post-flood or during flood, but pre-flood corals.
--Also, if coral Calcite is a major part of the bulk Cambrian+ sediments, this would very much effect that which is going on in this thread."And then they would form limestones? Remember that is what we have in the geological record. Not isolated organisms.""And then they would form limestones? Remember that is what we have in the geological record. Not isolated organisms."
--That's because most coral deposits occur on continents, not on the ocean basins."No, I didn't forget. Why would there be not methods for absolute dating? Are you simply ignoring radiometric ages?"
--Not really, radiometric dating is what I was specifically referring to. What I am saying is that if the flood occured, there can be no absolute dating method, at least none that I know of. Only relative. The reason radiometric ages would work within the framework of the flood is because exponential increases in daughter isotopes as we go further down into the geologic column would have been caused by an alteration in decay rates, or due to a global geochemical process of chemical fractionation from within the earth."This is because, in this case, you have drawn Buddika into an area where he is not so informed. This was basically an ego trip for you. Why do you not challenge wehappyfew to such a debate on evidence for the flood? You have set yourself up as an expert in this debate and you are far from that."
--This wasn't really an attempt to add credibility to my ego. It would be quite absurd if I were to believe that I would from an ill-informed individual. The reason I wouldn't set up such a debate with wehappy is because I would expect defeat. Not necessarily because the flood didn't occur, but because he is much more intelligent and informed than I. I will suffice to say that wehappy is quite brilliant and illustrates this characteristic of his well within his posts. If I am going to talk with wehappy, I would generally do so with the expectation to obtain knowledge rather than apply my pre-existing intelligence and know-how. If it be the other way around, it is likely expected that I would be doomed to fail miserably. Of course, a discourse carried out with the intention to learn may not go without preliminary disagreement and the exchange of ideas. I haven't set myself up as an expert, only that I know that Buddika doesn't know what he is talking about and would like to have this fact exhibited, not for my ego, but for my own twisted satisfaction."Besides, when you criticize the YECs you are right! Here you are marginally correct on some specific points, such as turbidites, but your overal undrestanding of the question is incomplete."
--I think I was a bit more accurate than 'marginally correct' on my points referring to turbidities. If when you say my 'overal undrestanding of the question is incomplete' you are referring to the flood in general, this is utterly true, no argument there.------------------

"Interesting that ahermatypic corals do not build reefs."
--Well the definition of 'ahermatypic' is the inverse of hermatypic isn't it? [A hermatypic coral is a reef-forming coral]--Regarding the hermatypic corals and survival there are many species which survive well in the a low C^o range as indicated by the graph inBarnes - Invertebrate Zoology; 1974, pg. 132. A graph representing the no. species of hermatypic corals at Bikini Atoll.------------------

"LOL..... Why didn't you quote the second sentence in my post? The one that points out that the survival of ahermatypic coral doesn't explain the survival of HERMATYPIC or REEF BUILDING coral. And, as far as I can tell, the division between hermatypic and ahermatypic is more properly the presence of symbiotic zooxanthaellae not, despite the name, the fact that the coral does or does not build reefs."
--There are hermatypic and ahermatypic scleractinian corals. The hermatypic types are found in warm tropic ocean waters. There is more in my response to edge.------------------

"Well, now that you mention it, both."
--Easy to say."Good, then you can show us an Arctic or Antarctic living reef. Please provide examples, if possible."
--Didn't say I could. In fact I think I made it clear that you don't find reefs in most temperate and arctic/antarctic waters. I don't think I need to find this either."Unclear. What do you mean by 'no factor of light penetration?'"
--light is not a factor in the growth of ahermatypic corals."Does it matter?"
--I was just trying to make sure that this wasn't something I missed and you were reiterating here."We are? You mean Precambrian corals?"
--Not really because it wouldn't have a relation to geologic strata. I'm talking about pre-flood existing corals, not coral deposits in the pre-Cambrian (don't think there are anyways)."But you say above that they are found everywhere. So, which is it? Where are the corals in the deep ocean basins? "
--You can check my reference if you like, Barnes - Invertebrate Zoology; 1974. It states:

quote:

---

Many species of corals need relatively shallow water and do not live at depths below the light penetration level. This is true of all reef-building species, most of which have a vertical distribution of 90 meters or less below the water surface. This vertical restriction is imposed by the symbiotic zooxanthellae (dinoflagellates in the palmella state) that live in the tissues of corals. The zooxanthellae require light energy for photosynthesis, and the corals cannot exist without the zooxanthellae. Only ahermatypic corals which lack zooxanthellae are found in deep cold waters.

---

"Why not? So you are saying that the flood caused radiometric ages to be erroneous?"
--The flood itself didn't cause the distribution of radioisotopes in Cambrian+ crusts, though in a sense the distribution (or what caused the distribution) caused the flood. This is true in both cases, altered decay rate or chemical fractionation."I thought you said they don't work."
--Sorry, misspelling, meant to say wouldn't."Good, now we are getting somewhere. Just what are these global processes and how much do they affect decay rates?¹ Why did they coincidentally happen at exactly the same time as the flood?² How did life on earth survive the increased radiation flux and the heat generated by same? (Wait, you've already avoided these questions before, oh well...)³"
--[1] - Well it is possible that both processes were went hand in hand, but I never said that both chemical fractionation and an alteration in decay rates happened simultaneously. in these 'global processes', that which was expelled from the earth and latterly distributed on the globe, assuming the reasonable assumption of superposition, lower stratum will have a higher quantity of "daughter" isotopes than an above stratum. An alteration in decay rate would simply make the appearance of age for obvious reasons.
--[2] - See above, I didn't say that they[the two processes] happened at the same time. If I take your statement here in a different context, I would mean to say that if it were the process of the decay rate alteration the increased decay rate would have been the cause of the flood so its a cause and effect relationship, not a coincidental occurrence.
--[3] - Could you elaborate a little more on this one?"Sounds like your goals are not necessarily to learn anything then, so what is your objective of drawing another layman into a technical debate here?¹ You haven't really added much to the debate, youself.² If you are trying to learn something you have a strange way of going about it.³ Besides the thread is totally out of control with little but tit-for-tat insults.⁴"
--[1] - In that specific debate, I didn't expect to learn, I expected to let him admit that he doesn't know what he is talking about so that we/I could actually teach him something here.
--[2] - Yes this is the effect of a narrow minded individual trying to defend a point he cannot defend, and in a struggle to do so, makes appeal to ad hominem and spouting pre-teen blather. Of course in doing this, it has aggitated the opposing view (myself) I tried to stay out of the bandwagon though.
--[3] - The thread was a preliminary attempt to open a door for there to actually be benefit from attempting to inject or absorb knowledge.
--[4] - Good thing its over, I am satisfied and feel that there is no need for a verdict."Then please explain the relationship between proximal and distal turbidites.¹ Tell us about levees and direction of transport.² Oh well, you're just going to look them up... Anyway, in many cases your analysis was correct, but not in all cases. While tubidite deposits may be quite thin, there are places where they are much thicker as well. Those areas tend to not have much bioturbation because the organisms have been killed off.³"
--I do not need to look them up because I already have, these points are exactly what I attempted to get accross to Buddika:
--[1] - I explained to buddika here this difference precisely:

quote:

---

Post #36
"Your blind blather about turbidity has been deleted since I defined turbidity quite clearly. If you are beset by one of your "differential interpretations" from mainstream science, then please do enlighten us by defining turbidity currents and turbidite deposits yourself, right here."
--Your definition was incorrect. You stated that "Turbidity currents deposit or redeposit material washed from the land. . They are characteristically graded from coarsest material to finest (bottom to top)" This is partially correct and also wrong, and is misleading. Turbidity currents do not deposit coarse to fine materials vertically to any significance, they are deposited in a horizontal granulometric correlation due to the turbidities movement. Fine grains settle further away than more coarse ones. Turbidity currents also are not confined to depositing or redepositing material washed from land as this article explains, being another dominant mechanism for turbidity current formation.

---

--[2] - Likewize for this issue:

quote:

---

Post #25
"So, once again for the congenitally retarded: it makes not a jot of difference what the animals were, they could not have made these burrows regardless of whether the burrows were made on dry land or under aquatic conditions, since there was not enough time if the global flood came and went in one year.

​

Get it now?"
--No actually you aren't getting it. Do you even understand the mechanics of turbidity currents? They are generally thought of as having devastating effects. Though, each turbidite deposit is a mere 1-5cm in thickness! That is highly minute. Turbidities are highly erosive submarine currents and given that the turbidities which took place in the Haymond formation didn't do even the smallest job at eroding the underlying poorly consolidated sediments, you have got to be kidding me to say that that would then wipe out an entire population of whatever the crustacean was. What is also disregarded is that turbidities do not spread out all over the ocean floor, they travel in considerably narrow proportions.

---

--I know this and there is no assertion in all of that thread which contradicts this. Though there are places where it is indicative that this is another point I tried to get across Buddika:

quote:

---

--From the quote above:

​

...They are generally thought of as having devastating effects. Though, each turbidite deposit is a mere 1-5cm in thickness! That is highly minute. Turbidities are highly erosive submarine currents and given that the turbidities which took place in the Haymond formation didn't do even the smallest job at eroding the underlying poorly consolidated sediments, you have got to be kidding me to say that that would then wipe out an entire population of whatever the crustacean was...

---

"Me: If when you say my 'overal undrestanding of the question is incomplete' you are referring to the flood in general, this is utterly true, no argument there.You: Or lack of a flood. Actually, I am referring to virtually all geological processes."
--I don't have a misunderstanding of 'virtually all geological processes', I understand quite a bit though not all, not even you, Meert or Wehappy can say that you understand all geologic processes.------------------

"Is that a rebuttal?"
--How could it be a rebuttal? There was nothing to refute."Hmm, but you have just inferred this in the geological record. I don't suppose you might consider constraining your just-so stories with a few facts or examples or something."
--No, not in the geologic record, in the ocean basins. It isn't a just so story, it is a statement of observed fact documented in the resource I supplied. Barnes, Invertebrate Zoology, 1974."TC, you said the flood started in the Cambrian. If there were coral prior to the flood then they must be Precambrian."
--Well if you want to see it in the context that Precambrian is a time frame rather than strata, then sure. In this case everything is pre-cambrian though."So, where are they found? Where are these do these corals form reefs or even generic limestone deposits in the deep ocan basins?
--Didn't you read the quote? It specifically stated that Only ahermatypic corals which lack zooxanthellae are found in deep cold waters. I never said that they made limestone deposits in the ocean basins.."Okay, now present some evidence to support your assertion."
--Well lets see, catastrophic plate tectonics requires heat, an period of altered decay rates increases mantle viscosity, hence catastrophic plate tectonics results. As to what caused the accelerated decay is more difficult to answer."What? That makes no sense at all. How does this support increased decay rates? What is the mechanism of increased rates?"
--It supports increased decay rates because what would be expected from such a decay event is seen in the geologic record. There are mechanisms which can decrease the half-lives of radioisotopes such as altering meson masses, though I will not argue that there is a completely natural explanation. There will be, no doubt, a barrier where there must be a supernatural intervention. We have deduced that this intervention must involve the decay rate of radioisotopes, it is possible to do this by altering natural values, though it is an intervention nonetheless. Though of course, this intervention isn't just a futile thing which we are required to get something observed. This simple change results in everything else Flood geology theorizes.
--There will be no direct evidence for such a decay, though indirect observations such as the distribution of isotopes in the earths crust are evidence."But why didn't they occur earlier in the earth's history? Or later? What triggered the increased decay rate?"
--Well if it occurred earlier in earths history, the flood would have been earlier now wouldn't it?"If you decayed all of the fissionable materials that we see evidence of today in a matter of one year, then you should show that the heat produced would not sterilize the planet."
--Most of the decay occured during the creation, much less of this decay occurred during the flood."And you would do the teaching, eh? LOL! "
--I did say we/I. It isn't difficult to teach someone with as little knowledge as buddika has exhibited."Well, why not debate Buddika on his own grounds. Remember evolution is not a simple matter that everyone can master all of the aspects of, despite what your professional creationists might lead you to believe."
--What do you mean by debate him on 'his own grounds'?"Well, you are wrong on a couple of counts. Turbidites DO deposite reverse graded bedding. That is how they were discovered. "
--I was talking about the horizontal granulometric distribution, not vertical bedding, this is a blooper of Buddika's not mine."Also, Buddika never said that the deposits were exclusively washed from the land. The word 'redposited' covers what you are talking about. But you knew that, of course."
--He said that that was his definition so it is logical to think that being it as his 'definition' that that is what they are the result of which was misleading."Several errors once again. Not all tubidity currents are considered devastating. And there are turbidites greater than 5cm in thickness. And they are not all highly erosive."
--Nothing in my comment contradicts this, why do you think I put so much emphasis on their thickness and lack in erosive power? I have made no error."I will stand by my statement and have given you several examples, including the definition of 'in place.'"
--Your definition is incorrect and was your definition, I however quoted a geologic resource verbatim."No, but we can see your errors. Now are you going to explain the different types of turbidite deposits? You have tap-danced away for several paragraphs. "
--I remember saying that turbidites have different origins. But what do you mean about the different types of turbidite deposits?------------------