|
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 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood II | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
I fixed the bug and the broken links in WmScott's post. This bug goes all the way back to the original UBB code. The old code inserted a linefeed every 180 characters if there wasn't any intervening whitespace. Naturally this is a bad idea for URLs.
The bug was only fixable for UBB codes. This is because I added UBB code parsing subroutines last fall, and so moving the truncation to this routine was easy. There is no HTML parsing code at present, and so URLs inserted with HTML instead of UBB codes are still limited to 180 characters. ------------------ --EvC Forum Administrator
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Even though I disagree with your new identification... Once again, I did not claim to make an identification, not this time, not the time before, not ever. I am not an expert in diatoms. I have no idea what a damaged diatom should look like. I cannot even tell diatoms from other forms of algae, as witness the last set of photos which Moose noted could easily be diatoms. I have repeated this and similar statements over and over and over again. Yet you keep claiming I made some sort of ID. Do you not understand English? Let me explain this one last time. I orginally said your photo was of poor quality and could resemble many things. A large proportion of microrganisms are probably round with splines, so most recently I posted some more pictures of round microrganisms with splines. This is consistent and in keeping with my earlier picture of Asteromphalus heptactis, where I also was not attempting to make an identification, but was just pointing out the ambiguity in your own ID by providing a picture of something else your photo also vaguely resembled. I spent all of five minutes finding that picture, and I didn't even look at any fresh water diatoms, and I expect that there are fresh water variants of many marine species. Your diatom has two splines. Did it loose five splines? Ten splines? Twenty splines? Whatever your answer, how do you know? About the only support you can find from me is that I think your photo bears a better vague resemblance to the diatom I found than the one you found. But it's still a vague resemblance, and I would never claim I made an ID based on such a poor resemblance. And since I believe in consensus (more about this later), I wouldn't believe I'd made a proper ID until it had been confirmed and agreed to by others. Moving on to a more significant topic, you've apparently failed to consider one of the primary forms of diatom distribution: ground transport. Apparently marine diatoms are distributed by rail, by truck, by car, by cow and even by International Harvester. Almost a couple weeks ago an email arrived describing the various uses of diatomaceous material. I don't know why the author didn't post it him/herself, but s/he offered it to me to use. I replied encouraging the author to post the material him/herself, but now I think I've waited long enough, and so I include it here unchanged except for formatting and spelling:
I couldn't get the last two links to work. I suggest you ask Edge or Joe Meert about possible geologists to contact about diatom identifications, but my guess is that at this point it would be a pointless exercise. If they're diatoms, then any experienced field geology will probably just tell you that marine diatoms found in surface material, especially in agricultural regions of the country like yours, frequently have a human origin. We've argued long and apparently pointlessly about your diatoms. The diatom discussion was different from most other conversations on the board because instead of discussing existing mainstream evidence we were talking about evidence you had gathered yourself and which only you had examined. I accept mainstream evidence because it has been repeatedly gathered, examined and reviewed by many people. I reject your evidence not just because I question your diatom IDs, but because you are working by yourself with no colleagues. You have no feedback or support from outside opinions, though your inner need for it is obvious in the way you proclaim you've found support in outside quarters, though no one else sees any. Science today is far too broad and complex an endeavor for the next major revolution to come from a scientific hermit in Wisconsin. It is a group activity which progresses through consensus. From a scientific standpoint, your pictures are only of diatoms when a lot of other qualified people agree with you that they're diatoms. And your diatoms arrived there by flood only when a lot of other people agree with you that they arrived by flood. Keep the need for consensus in mind. It's not enough that you think so, a lot of other people must think so, too. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Percy,
Thanks for the info on industrial use and transport of diatoms and diatomaceous earth (Damn, I wish I'd thought of that!). This is a fascinating subject. I once talked to some diatomaceous earth miners in California. They told me how any piece of equipment that goes into the quarry is virtually 'detailed' before it is allow entry due to concerns about contamination. No dirt, soil, leaves, loose paint or oil is left. As anyone who works with heavy equipment knows this borders on obsession. They clean the bulldozer treads with brushes and hot water. Anyway, you can imagine what happens to the stuff once it gets bagged and loaded on trucks for transport all over the country ... diatomaceous dust everywhere.
quote: With regard to wmscott's diatoms: I would say that, based on symmetry consideratons, his identifications are wrong. Also, despite his declarations that they showed no abrasion or evidence of eolian transport, the specimens are damaged. That, along with the poor quality of photographs, suggests to me that no valid identification or source (marine vs non-marine) can be made. As to experts, there are many out there on the web. I am sure that they are available to make identifications for anyone, and would probably be gratified (and shocked) that someone outside their small fraternity would be interested in such obscure organisms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Wm
On the Yellowstone fossil forests, there are definite ground layers and the trees have not been moved as the following link and post shows. Several characteristics can distinguish between stumps that are transported and those that were buried in place The trees at Yellowstone have been examined, and only some tree specimens at some localities are transported. The Specimen Ridge examples, which are most commonly cited, consist of in-place stumps. . . The vast majority of occurrences can not be explained by transport. I have also interpreted the tall stumps on Specimen Ridge to be in place and have stated that the forests [besides Specimen Ridge] are best explained by _both_ in situ and transported wood I have proposed ways to differentiate in situ from transported stumps . . . by all these criteria, the tall stumps on Specimen Ridge are in place." "Fritz's Comment clears up any lingering misunderstandings that may have arisen as a result of the original publication about the Yellowstone fossil forests that triggered this series of exchanges (Fritz, 1980c). Many details of the facies relationships in the Lamar River Formation [the unit the Yellowstone fossil forests occur in] still must be studied, but I think we have at last gotten to the root of the forest problem, and no longer need to be stumped by the origin of these fossil trees." That should clear it up for you This does not clear it up. Austin could publish creaitonist comments that read positively for our sceanrio. It is a matter of interpretation and ones bias can sway the 'criteria' used by either side. This stuff is fitted to belief by both sides. Of course I nevertheless believe the YEC view is a better explanation of these phenomena.
If the Yellowstone site was an isolated event, it would help the YEC point of view, the fact that a number of stacked fossil forests are known around the world, indicates that the YEC explanation is stretched beyond the breaking point in trying to account for them all. No, we would expect it to happen all over the world too! Are there creationists who propose that Noah was a Californian? You are incredibly biased Wm. You rarely go the next step of considering what our POV would really be. You just go for a misrepresentation.
On the comets, I find I will have to make a retraction on part of my argument, the composition of comet gases is simular to volcanic gases. OK
I gather if this is your position, confirmation of the existence of Oort cloud or Kuiper Belt comets would be fatal to YEC. How it could be fatal when we admit ourselves that the flood origin of comets is a fringe (but intriguing) explanation! Please read all my discussion on flood comets in this sense.
"The new object is much bigger, about half the size of Pluto, and is very distant from the Earth. Who says this is a primarily ice object?
If we were to add up the volumes of all these known comets, we would have a figure larger than the current amount of water on the earth. I simply have no idea and congratulate you on your ability to intuitively come to such conclusions without even doing a back-of-the-envelope calculation.
The Busheld complex was the igneous intrusion complex in South Africa that I talked about in an earlier post. So? We already believe the Siberian traps are a flood event.
There are so many YEC scenarios with mutually conflicting ideas, it is a sea of chaos. The way you misinterperet it, yes it is.
Now in Genesis 2:2 seventh day starts after the creation of man, so how can you have a 1000 year rest day and six more 1000 year days, and yet you say man is only 6,000 years old? Becasue I don't want to bring up the red herring of thousand year days every time I discuss creation. I'm not utterly convinced of it myself as far as the creative week is concerned although I am convinced of a 7 1000 year day 'redemptive week'.
Also the start of Christ millennial reign is not connected with the length or timing of the creative days, for the simple reason that Matthew 24:36-42 states that only God knows the set time, not even Jesus knew. It speaks of 'day or the hour'. Elsewhere Christ tells us to 'watch the seasons' to know his coming. At that level I expect the 2nd coming with 'a generation'.
I happen to have the NIV study Bible, if you look at the foot note it even states "Israel's going into Canaan under Joshua was a partial and temporary entering of God's rest. I would actually see the coming into the promised land as a 'shadow' picture (in the sense of Hebrews) of the ultimate rest day.
Paul's point was that the promised land was not the paradise the meek are to inherit, it only fore shadowed the future entry of Christ's followers into the New World. Agreed
So there are not two divine rest days being referred to in Hebrews 4:8, there is only one divine rest day mentioned in the Bible. That's where I don't follow your logic. How do you not see 'another' day as 'another day'!? The use of 'another day' points to another sabbatical rest day. How can you possibly have the 'another day' be the same as a previous day?
Rev 20-22 refers to Christ's reign and does not refer to the seventh creative day. I don;'t beleive that the millenium is the creative rest day. It is 'another' rest day (as per Heb 4). It is the 'redemptive' rest day for a second 'week' as I have explained. I did mention that the 'day of the Lord' referred to elsewhere in the NT involves events that in Rev 20-22 occur on either side of the millenium. This is a strong hint that time ends with a 1000 year 'day'.
So to sum up. you have no answers for the following. Wm, I suggest you are clearly 'marking your own exam paper' here as well as expecting everything to neatly pop out in one go.
This is why I don't accept YEC, the more you look into it, the more problems there are, if it was the right answer, it would solve problems rather than create them. My testimony is exactly the opposite. The more I examine the YEC sceanrio the more I am understanding why the universe and Earth are the way they are and how mainstream sceince has got it subtley (but not subtley) wrong. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-27-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
quote:I've presented you with a reference with about twenty argon-argon dates of 249.4 +/- 0.5 million years for the basalt of the Siberian Traps and their eastward extension, which is buried by up to 2 km of sediments. You have yet to comment either on the age, or on how long it takes 1,300,000 cubic kilometers of molten rock to cool below the boiling point of water.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Coragyps
I have commented on the age (I agreed the uiformity puts constraints on our model) and I simply don't personally have time to do the cooling calcs. I have a mainstream day job.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Edge
I believe both sides are doing data fitting. Becasue of the nature of the data both sides can frequently get acceptable results. You can LOL and snicker as much as you like but this is my sober opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
[quote]I have a mainstream day job.{/quote
Sob! Yeah, me too. Sob! Wail!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Good for you. This is a nice vague generalization, how about some examples?
quote: Only when creationists ignore some data.
quote: Thank you. I will. In the absence of facts, that is all you have... As much as I have castigated wmscott, at least he has some idea of geological processes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Edge
Good for you. This is a nice vague generalization, how about some examples? Evidence that we are data fitting? 1a You data fit the geo-col to eons of time and the occasional catastrophe.* The positive evidence is fitted to numerous depositonal envrionements. * But a lot of the data doesn't easily fit this scenario: systematic fossil graveyards, sorted layers on grand scales, cyclothems, paleocurrents etc. 1b We data fit the geo-col to a catastrophic tectoic flood event with the occasional brief break.* The positive data is fitted to tectonically generated flood surges. * But a lot of the data doesn't easily fit this scenario: Evaporite deposits, habitated ground layers, eolien deposits. How do we disipate the tectonic heat? 2a You fit the fossil record to evolution over time.* The positive data is fitted to a sceanrio by arbitary length lines. * But there are systematically no transitionals along the lines. How did the biochemistry of life first evolve? Where did the basic gene types come from? Can anatomies really constrcut themselves blindly? 2b We fit the fossil record to creaiton and the flood.* The positive data is fitted to a creatd 'kind'/flood burial concept with sufficient diversification to explain observed effects of natural selection and allow Noah to fit all the land based kinds on the ark. * But there are a handful of transtionals and why all dinosaurs below modern mammals and why no flowering plants below amphibians? We both have similar problems becasue we simply fit the data as best we can to the model we prefer. Down the track one model may become better, probably not just through data taking (although genomics may lend a hand, paleontolgoy still delivers surprises and a systematic study of paelocurrents might be interesting) but also by an improvement in models. Due to the intracability of these complex systems it may not be possible to completely sort this out scientifically.
Only when creationists ignore some data. Or evolutionists ignore other data.
As much as I have castigated wmscott, at least he has some idea of geological processes. So give me some examples of what I don't understand. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-28-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Nope, the geological column was constructed first. It then became clear that old ages were necessary to explain it.
quote: Nope. The interpretations is fit to the evidence.
quote: Nope. The paleocurrents etc. are data that mainstream geology is built upon.
quote: Agreed, you do.
quote: Which are not supported by the evidence and have no mechanism.
quote: All of these are more than adequately explained by mainstream geology.
quote: Nope. Evolution explains the fossil record. You've got it backwards again!
quote: Nope. The lines are not of arbitrary length and suggest a lack of data and a proposed lineage (an explanation of the data).
quote: That is because they are an interpretation drawn to fit the known data. Not the other way around.
quote: There is evidence of natural origins. Abiogenesis explains this data. The data are not bent to fit the theory.
quote: Correct, you fit the data to your theory.
quote: Yes, you have forced the data to an explanation that has no mechanism, no modern counterpars and largely defies physical laws.
quote: Evolution explains these things readily.
quote: Correction. You fit the data, we explain it.
quote: You are behind the curve again on this....
quote: Not as long as you can invoke miracles.
quote: I have ignored no issues that you have brought up. On the other hand, I hear you say all the time, 'well, this is a problem for us' or you ignore the point all together.
quote: See above. You do not know where the geological column came from, nor do you realize that evolutuion explains the fossil record (not the other way around).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Edge
TB: 1a You data fit the geo-col to eons of time and the occasional catastrophe. Edge: Nope, the geological column was constructed first. It then became clear that old ages were necessary to explain it. That is still data fitting. You have data and then for each bed you find the most similar sedimentary environmetn today and you say that is what this environment looks like after lithificaiton. It is a best fit/calibration scenario. We can do the same thing expcept we have to rely more on simulation since we have no global flood happeneing today.
Nope. The lines are not of arbitrary length and suggest a lack of data and a proposed lineage (an explanation of the data). The lines come from the cladogram not the fossil record.
TB: * But there are systematically no transitionals along the lines. Edge: That is because they are an interpretation drawn to fit the known data. Not the other way around. You take the data and weave a story around it with dotted lines (and then turn the dotten lines into flows for the public, university and school students. That is data fitting.
Abiogenesis explains this data. LOL!
You do not know where the geological column came from, nor do you realize that evolutuion explains the fossil record (not the other way around). I know the historical and technical issues very well. I beleive it is you that do not realize the extent to which you have confused data with interpretaiton.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Well, at least you are consistent. Consistently wrong, that is. You have to understand that there is history here. Just because we now know that the GC represents long ages, does not mean that this was always so. Evidence collected along the way showed us that the times were much longer than 6000 years. For example, radiometric decay made it virtually impossible to have a 6Ky earth. No data fitting at all, simply restructuring of the theory.
quote: Exactly, the cladograms are not data, the fossil record is. The diagrams were derived from the known fossil record.
quote: Exactly, the story is fitted to the data.
quote: Yes, they are the best story available.
quote: Another cogent argument, I see...
quote: I have demonstrated otherwise...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Edge
Exactly, the story is fitted to the data. That is all I am saying. That process is called 'data-fitting'. Here is a random web example that shows in what sense the term is used:
The MathWorks - Spline Toolbox - The Spline Toolbox is a collection of MATLAB functions for data fitting, interpolation, extrapolation, and visualization. Mathtools.net - A Resource for the Technical Computing Community In the quantitative fileds I work in (physics and structural biology) we data-fit all th time. In my field a better way to fit NMR data to yield atomic-level molecular dynamics information has just been published. It frequently completely changes the dynamics results extracted from the same data. Data-fitting is exactly the process of weaving a model around data. If you think I am saying that the data is being doctored then you misunderstand me. The geo-col is simply not the type of data that 'speaks for itself'. Naively it looks either like eons or a catastrophe. In detail it also looks either like eons or a catastrophe simply because of the nature of the data. We are both trying to explain the mineral compostion, fossil compostion, paelocurrents and tectonic aspects of the entire vertical span of the geo-col over the entire surface of the Earth. This is very difficult to do in a deterministic manner. It is very difficult to do anything other than tell 'just-so' stories. Stating that the continents have moved and the sea-floors have subducted and climate has changed is one thing. Stating that you know the rates that these processes occurred at is another. YEC Christians have both the Biblical claim of a global flood and systematic scientific evidence of rapidity of generation of the geo-col to back up our viewpoint. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-29-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wmscott Member (Idle past 6278 days) Posts: 580 From: Sussex, WI USA Joined: |
Dear Percy;
First, thanks for fixing the bug. I knew you would object to my using the word 'identification' in regard to your most recent hum, er . . . "suggestion?" When writing that post I couldn't think of a watered down enough word or phrase that you would be happy with. I used the word 'identification' solely for clarity so you would know what I was referring to. In terms of 'identification' you can think of the usage in light of the little boy riding in the car who looks out the window and sees a cow and said "Doggy!" All 'identifications' are relative as you have repeatedly pointed out by constantly questioning mine. Now if I point out the window and say "unicorn" you can shake your head, point to me and make the 'crazy' circular motions next to your head, and you haven't crossed the line. But if you open your picture book and hold up a picture of a horse, you just made an identification. Once you went from just saying no it isn't, to saying maybe it is this, you crossed the line. I know, I had to bait you for quite a while to get you to do it, and once it is done it is done. Granted you have only basically said 'doggy' which is certainly not an official certified scientific identification published by the leading scientist in the field who is willing to stake his reputation on his carefully researched results. I know you didn't make an official identification, you just offered other possibilities which is offering an alterative unofficial identification which I, to up hold my position have to refute. If you were not offering any possible alterative identifications, then I could ignore the pictures you posted at no risk to my position. So were you challenging my identification, or do you just like to post pretty pictures?
quote:Yes of course, that is why species identification is important. Asterolampra Marylandica is a centric diatom of which there are very few freshwater descendants, in fact the older books on diatoms say there are none. I have been unable to find any freshwater diatoms that have any resemblance to Asterolampra Marylandica , from your lack of posting on this I gather you haven't ether or wouldn't have resorted to posting pictures of algae. quote:I have been waiting for the better part of a year for somebody to bring this up. A web site had the following information on diatomite mines and mining in the USA. quote:CAS – Central Authentication Service Now, most mines of diatoms are freshwater diatoms which don't concern us since we are talking about marine diatoms. In the USA, only the mine at Lompoc, California mines marine diatoms and they are mining the Monterey Formation which has marine sediments from the upper Miocene to the lower Pliocene. The lower Pliocene age gives the diatoms of the Monterey formation a minimum age of probably at least 3.5 millions years. The types of diatoms found in the oceans 3.5 million years ago was considerably different from what was present at the end of the ice age. The following web site noted.
quote:Page not found - MBARI Based on that rate of replacement, most of the diatoms found in the Monterey Formation are extinct and are not a problem. Additionally as pointed out in the first site quoted, 70% of this material is used in filtration which means it was sintered or fused, such treatment is visible under the microscope and also fuses the diatoms into clumps too large for wind transport. Also as I have already pointed out, Asterolampra Marylandica is too large for wind transport any way. So contamination from diatomaceous earth and diatomite is at most a very minor problem which can be avoided by site selection. Since I am looking for traces of a marine transgression at the end of the last ice, I of course am looking for undisturbed ice age landscapes, which will not have been contaminated by spread of diatoms from diatomaceous earth. Diatomite is not a problem since it is former diatomaceous earth that has been fused together like sand stone due to heat and pressure.
quote:OK, Edge & Joe Meert, If you read this you may consider yourselves officially asked for help. quote:Very sad outlook Percy, I hope most researchers adamantly object to your assessment of scientific progress. Reminds me of something I saw, there was a book published called '100 against Enstien' when someone told Enstein about it he is said to quiped "one would be enough if they were right" Once I complete my research and am hopefully able to publish my results, then we will see whether my findings are accepted or not. So far, my ideas and findings have received little attention and I have yet to complete my work. I am working towards achieving scientific consensus on my work, but even if I am never even published, what matters in the end is whether I was right or not, not how many believed. --WmScott
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024