Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 257 of 460 (8691)
04-18-2002 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by edge
04-12-2002 10:47 AM


edge
The geology of the state of Wisconsin is of a gentle rise in average elevation from about 1000 ft in the south to about 1500 ft in the north with hills in the north reaching nearly 2000 ft. The Driftless area is sloped to the south and west towards the Mississippi and is crossed by a number of very well developed river valleys. Due to this general slope and the presence of valleys draining this area to the west and south, the terrain does not permit the formation of a large glacial lake since the water would drain to the southwest. In order to flood this area, it would require a massive flood on the Mississippi on a scale that could only be the result of a rising sea level since the river would otherwise be able to flow around any obstruction across the plains to the sea, since the continent continues sloping down to the gulf of Mexico. Claiming greater glacial depression of the area to flood the Driftless area doesn't work ether, since the faint shore lines of lake Wisconsin only show a 40 ft rise from south to north. The only possibility for flooding the entire Driftless area that I can see aside from a global flood, is to claim that this non glaciated island was just that, that the glaciers surrounded the area to the south and pinched off the Mississippi river, damming it and flooding the Driftless area. The retaining glaciers to south would have had to collided which would have formed a distinctive pattern of land forms like we find in the kettle moraine area where two lobes of the glaciers met. But we fail to find such formations in an appropriate area south of the Driftless area. Which is just one of a number of reasons why a giant damming of the Mississippi river flooding the Driftless Area is unplausible.
There no doubt are many dropstones found in many parts of the world, and many of them are undoubtedly located at high elevations. Dropstones need to be carried by ice, which restricts their locations to areas where floating ice from a glacier could have carried them before breaking up in the flood waters. Most of the dropstones from the flood are to be found in areas near the locations of the former glaciers and are mistaken for normal glacial erratics. Only in the Driftless area do these dropstones stand out since this is an area that is very close to the former glaciers and yet is expected to be free of glacial erratics. Yet they do turn up in other areas as well, one dropstone I found here in SW Wisconsin is at an elevation of 1000 ft. It is possible to identify these dropstones by the occurrence of marine traces beneath them. But without checking these dropstones appear to just another erratic boulder. We have also been focusing our discussion on the dropstones in the Driftless area, but that doesn't mean that is the only place they turn up. They are found in many places around the world and have been commented on by a number of authors, and by testing the soil beneath erratics many more would be found.
"What 15 meter sea level rise is that?" The 15 m rise in sea level that occurred after the LGM as a result of a sudden movement of meltwater and ice into the sea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by edge, posted 04-12-2002 10:47 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by edge, posted 04-18-2002 6:11 PM wmscott has replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 258 of 460 (8692)
04-18-2002 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Percy
04-12-2002 2:12 PM


Percipient
I would prefer to keep this thread focused on the geology of the flood, so I don't want to get overly side tracked in Genetics so I will try to keep this brief. My point was that whether you believe in creation or evolution, mankind had to have a starting point, a first pair. Therefore it makes no sense to argue against the genetics of the story of Adam & Eve. Even if you are an evolutionist, descent from a single pair is not a problem in itself and is what the findings of recent genetic tests point to. The differences are once again a matter of timing, how long ago was that origin, not whether or not it happened. the only other alternative to a single pair would be some sort of group suddenly appearing out of nowhere which would be harder to believe than the garden of Eden story. For we differ greatly from our supposed ancestor Homo Erectus and under the evolutionary theory the change to mankind must have been very abrupt since it occurred recently in a brief period of time and left no fossil traces of a progressive change from Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens Sapiens. (remember that a number of finds have recently been reclassified as belonging to Homo Erectus.) Recent genetic work has also been published with results stating that mankind is descended from just a few women who lived at the end of the ice age. See ( Oops, something lost ) While the indicated number was higher then the biblical 4, it does point towards a bottle neck occurring in the human population at that time. It has also long been noted that at the end of the ice age many peoples disappear and are replaced by other people who migrate into that area. The Australian Aborigines you refer to, are not the same people as the original inhabitants. In the Ice Age, Australia had two difference distinct population types, both of whom disappear, the aborigines are later immigrants. The dates given for the arrival of the aborigines are much too early for my liking, but other than a possible dating error, the data supports a wiping out of the original population with the area being recolonized through later migration. I am very happy with the results of genetic testing and look forward to future findings. The differences between biblical dates and the genetics dates do not alarm me when you consider how they are arrived at. "Molecular dates, which depend on a lot of assumptions, will always be argued over." The Fossil Trail; How We Know What We Think We Know about Human Evolution by Ian Tattersall, page 221.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Percy, posted 04-12-2002 2:12 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Percy, posted 04-18-2002 10:19 PM wmscott has replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 259 of 460 (8693)
04-18-2002 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by joz
04-12-2002 4:23 PM


Joz
"ability of the atmosphere to accommodate the vaporized material."- the atmosphere is generally stated as containing enough water that if it rained out evenly over the entire globe, that it would at the most amount to only 1 or 2 inches of rain. Local concentrations could in theory be higher, and a local infusion of a large amount of water could be defused over a wider area. However we are discussing too large of an area for defusing to matter. The amount of cratering I am considering would have potentially removed more ice than the 1 or 2 inches the atmosphere can hold. Additionally it can not be assumed that the area was at zero % humidity to start with. Even with the rapid heating of the atmosphere, there would have been more than what the atmosphere could hold, and even if it could have held it, as soon as the air began to cool the excess moisture would have condensed and fallen in a heavy rain as is predicted by impact models.
"Which journal article?" The 15m rise in sea level that occurred at the LGM is mentioned in a lot of journal articles. Here are a few I happen to have on hand.
Global Ice volumes at the Last Glacial Maximum and early Lateglacial, Lambeck, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 181 (2000) 513-527
Timing of the Last Glacial Maximum from observed sea-level minima, Yokoyama, Nature, VOL 406, 17 August 2000, page 713-715
"could" at least you are now accepting the feasibility of the events.
"shock wave gets more diffuse and thus causes LESS damage at the edges of the ice sheet or at those "ice dams" of yours." Not even a problem if the impact pattern extended to the edge of the ice sheet.
"Neanderthals went extinct 35,000 years ago not 10,000" The date has slowly been reduced over time and currently now stands at 28,000 years ago and will probably be further reduced as time passes. Plus the finds we have tend to be of earlier burials which would further reduce the difference in time. It is apparent that they went extinct at the end of the ice age, and their disappearance is unexplained.
"Also the statement "no one a live today has Neanderthal genes" may not be as true as you think it is:" Don't tell me you are going to claim to be a Neanderthal descendant, maybe I had better check your brow line. (LOL) I would suggest consulting any of the number of journal articles on the total lack of Neanderthal genes in modern man. Here is one I happen to have laying around.
Neandertal DNA Sequences and the Origin of Modern Humans, Krings, Cell, vol 90, 19-30, July 11, 1997.
The link you provided is referring to a possible indirect effect on Rh% in a population and is disproved by the findings on human and Neandertal DNA. Here is a link on Neandertal DNA.
http://www.academicpress.com/inscight/03282000/grapha.htm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by joz, posted 04-12-2002 4:23 PM joz has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 260 of 460 (8694)
04-18-2002 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by wmscott
04-18-2002 5:48 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
The geology of the state of Wisconsin is of a gentle rise in average elevation from about 1000 ft in the south to about 1500 ft in the north with hills in the north reaching nearly 2000 ft.

Hmm, sure wouldn't take a gobal flood to cover this area, then. Why do you extrapolated from Wisconsin to the rest of the vertical world?
quote:
The Driftless area is sloped to the south and west towards the Mississippi and is crossed by a number of very well developed river valleys. Due to this general slope and the presence of valleys draining this area to the west and south, the terrain does not permit the formation of a large glacial lake since the water would drain to the southwest.
Of course it slopes to the south. It was once depressed by glaciers. And if it's so hard to hold lakes up there, why do you have the Great Lakes?
quote:
In order to flood this area, it would require a massive flood on the Mississippi on a scale that could only be the result of a rising sea level since the river would otherwise be able to flow around any obstruction across the plains to the sea, since the continent continues sloping down to the gulf of Mexico.
Neither would it require a global flood. As far as I can see the maximum elevation of dropstones is about 1000 feet. That doesn't even cover all of Wisconsin.
quote:
Claiming greater glacial depression of the area to flood the Driftless area doesn't work ether, since the faint shore lines of lake Wisconsin only show a 40 ft rise from south to north. The only possibility for flooding the entire Driftless area that I can see aside from a global flood, is to claim that this non glaciated island was just that, that the glaciers surrounded the area to the south and pinched off the Mississippi river, damming it and flooding the Driftless area. The retaining glaciers to south would have had to collided which would have formed a distinctive pattern of land forms like we find in the kettle moraine area where two lobes of the glaciers met. But we fail to find such formations in an appropriate area south of the Driftless area. Which is just one of a number of reasons why a giant damming of the Mississippi river flooding the Driftless Area is unplausible.
I don't know anyone who proposes this. Why do you keep whacking away at this strawman?
quote:
There no doubt are many dropstones found in many parts of the world, and many of them are undoubtedly located at high elevations.
Good then you can document them and show us that they were related to a global flood and not a local lake or uplifted seafloor. It seems to me that you would have done this before writing your book, though ...
quote:
Dropstones need to be carried by ice, which restricts their locations to areas where floating ice from a glacier could have carried them before breaking up in the flood waters.
What do you mean "before breaking up in the floodwaters?" It sounds to me like you have a presupposition that there was a flood. Thanks for the geology lesson, though. I'm glad we cleared up this controversial point on dropstone deposition.
quote:
Most of the dropstones from the flood are to be found in areas near the locations of the former glaciers and are mistaken for normal glacial erratics.
But they must not be, because you know better, right?
quote:
Only in the Driftless area do these dropstones stand out since this is an area that is very close to the former glaciers and yet is expected to be free of glacial erratics. Yet they do turn up in other areas as well, one dropstone I found here in SW Wisconsin is at an elevation of 1000 ft. It is possible to identify these dropstones by the occurrence of marine traces beneath them. But without checking these dropstones appear to just another erratic boulder. We have also been focusing our discussion on the dropstones in the Driftless area, but that doesn't mean that is the only place they turn up. They are found in many places around the world and have been commented on by a number of authors, and by testing the soil beneath erratics many more would be found.
Yes, there are dropstones being deposited today. But I don't see a global flood going on, do you?
quote:
"What 15 meter sea level rise is that?" The 15 m rise in sea level that occurred after the LGM as a result of a sudden movement of meltwater and ice into the sea.
Are you saying that a 15 m rise in sea level was a global flood?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by wmscott, posted 04-18-2002 5:48 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by wmscott, posted 04-25-2002 6:00 PM edge has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 261 of 460 (8697)
04-18-2002 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by wmscott
04-18-2002 5:51 PM


wmscott writes:

Recent genetic work has also been published with results stating that mankind is descended from just a few women who lived at the end of the ice age. See (Oops, something lost)
You cited a website that sells fake genealogies. For a mere $250 they'll sequence your DNA and tell you which ancient matriarch you're descended from, as well as details of her life and times. Nice twist on an old fraud. Hey, send me $100 and I'll mail you your family's authentic coat of arms as well as pictures of your ancestral castle! Hurry while supplies last!
By the way, even this fraud of a website contradicts your dating and agrees with science - at least they did *some* homework. It says the Seven Eves lived 150,000 years ago, not 10,000 years ago.
The actual positions of science (eg, dating, geology, genetics) appear to be of no interest to you. You just mention a mystery here, make up a few dates there, and the next thing you know we're off on another journey into wmscottie-land.
--Percy
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 04-19-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by wmscott, posted 04-18-2002 5:51 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Joe Meert, posted 04-19-2002 1:49 AM Percy has replied
 Message 267 by wmscott, posted 04-25-2002 6:02 PM Percy has replied

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 262 of 460 (8703)
04-19-2002 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by Percy
04-18-2002 10:19 PM


wmscott,
We've been through all your 'stuff' via e-mail. Basic story is that you are neglecting the evidence for ALL the earlier ice ages, you are neglecting physical evidence left by the most recent ice ages, you are neglecting evidence about sea level rise before, during and after the most recent glaciation, you are neglecting the evidence of creationist scholars from the 19th century (Aggasiz) who concluded that the evidence argued AGAINST a global flood, you are neglecting basic fundamental principles of geology, you are neglecting to publish your results in the proper literature and you are neglecting to fit the whole thing together into a coherent earth-history story. In short, you have nothing in your favor except for the fact that this is how you think things SHOULD HAVE happened. So, I ask you again to submit your ideas to a scientific journal. The proof is not how well you think you argue on a BB, it is how well you argue to geologists. I may well be a minority, but your argument for a global flood doesn't hold much water. Why not test it amongst other geologists?
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Percy, posted 04-18-2002 10:19 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Percy, posted 04-19-2002 11:34 AM Joe Meert has replied
 Message 268 by wmscott, posted 04-25-2002 6:04 PM Joe Meert has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 263 of 460 (8707)
04-19-2002 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Joe Meert
04-19-2002 1:49 AM


Hi Joe!
I'm guessing we're both pretty certain that if wmscott were to submit his ideas in the form of a technical paper to any relevant geology journal that it would be rejected out of hand on so many grounds as to not be worth enumerating, though among them would be lack of understanding and familiarity with basic geological principles and lack of supporting evidence. I don't think the editors of any journal would even bother circulating it for peer review. In fact, most would probably stop reading after encountering "global flood" for the first time, since this phrase makes clear the religious nature of the work.
In his book wmscott is following a time-honored Creationist tradition by bringing his views to those unable to critically assess them, but discussion with us here is a different story. While it's nothing like peer-review, it's certainly much more courageous than many other original Creationist thinkers.
But wmscott is also, I believe, an example of a not uncommon delusional psychological condition which is best described by example, such as in people who believe they've found evidence of alien visitations or think they've invented perpetual motion machines. In other words, I don't believe he's a fraud because I think he honestly believes what he's saying.
Having a delusion does not mean that one's other mental faculties are impaired, as journal editors who receive submissions from Einstein-wannabes can well attest. Wmscott has successfully maintained a moderate and well-reasoned tone, and has often argued ingeniously for his point of view.
Nonetheless, the filters he has to employ in order to avoid perceiving the weaknesses and contradictions inherent in his position are still occasionally visible in the form of his occasional whoppers, such as his recent genetic arguments, and especially the referencing of the Seven Eves genealogy website. An earlier whopper was when he completely misinterpreted a paper on diatoms in Antarctica as supporting his global flood views.
I'm of a mixed mind as I consider whether further debate with wmscott is worthwhile. The fallacies are just so obvious that it's hard to resist pointing them out. On the other hand, wmscott's opinions have so far proven impervious to evidence, so would there be any point to further discussion? I haven't decided yet.
--Percy
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 04-19-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Joe Meert, posted 04-19-2002 1:49 AM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Joe Meert, posted 04-19-2002 8:59 PM Percy has not replied

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 264 of 460 (8721)
04-19-2002 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Percy
04-19-2002 11:34 AM


Percy,
You are correct. If wmscott submitted his paper, it would be rejected. Wnscott would think it was rejected for political rather than scientific reasons and would then parade forth with "Brilliant men are persecuted" arguments. This happens a lot with people, even reasonable scientists. Behe declared his IC idea on par with Einstein, Pasteur etc (usually its peers who laud great ideas, but Behe couldn't wait). He now claims his ideas are stifled in the literature. Gentry is doing the same thing. It's actually a good strategy because we've been conditioned to give 'everyone a fair shake' and 'equal time'. Science is actually a harsh enterprise where bad ideas are called 'bad ideas' and there are no apologies made. Such a harsh attitude means that scientists must develop a tough skin to survive, but the evidence shows that harsh criticism works! Creationists won't ever understand that.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Percy, posted 04-19-2002 11:34 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by edge, posted 04-20-2002 2:06 PM Joe Meert has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 265 of 460 (8729)
04-20-2002 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Joe Meert
04-19-2002 8:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Joe Meert:
You are correct. If wmscott submitted his paper, it would be rejected. Wnscott would think it was rejected for political rather than scientific reasons and would then parade forth with "Brilliant men are persecuted" arguments. This happens a lot with people, even reasonable scientists. Behe declared his IC idea on par with Einstein, Pasteur etc (usually its peers who laud great ideas, but Behe couldn't wait). He now claims his ideas are stifled in the literature. Gentry is doing the same thing.

Interesting how this is in direct contrast to the really great scientists, including Darwin who agonized for years about how to present his evolutionary theory. How many of the giants of science were not appreciated at the time of their discoveries and, in some cases, even till long after their deaths? You would think that ID movement would learn from history on this, but the lesson has somehow been lost.
quote:
It's actually a good strategy because we've been conditioned to give 'everyone a fair shake' and 'equal time'. Science is actually a harsh enterprise where bad ideas are called 'bad ideas' and there are no apologies made. Such a harsh attitude means that scientists must develop a tough skin to survive, but the evidence shows that harsh criticism works! Creationists won't ever understand that.
Science is not a democracy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Joe Meert, posted 04-19-2002 8:59 PM Joe Meert has not replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 266 of 460 (8978)
04-25-2002 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by edge
04-18-2002 6:11 PM


edge
On my posting showing that the physical evidence fails to support a local flooding of the Driftless Area, you responded "Why do you keep whacking away at this strawman?" Am I to understand that you accept the dropstones found there could not be from a local flood?
"Are you saying that a 15 m rise in sea level was a global flood?" I am predicting that the flood was a very brief event followed by rapid flexing of the earth's crust in response to the shift in pressures on it. This would appear in the geological record as a sudden jump from the pre flood sea level to the post flood sea level, since the flood itself was to quick to leave more than a few traces. The post LGM sealevel jump of at least 15m could very well be that predicted jump.
On lake Michigan, it rests in a bed craved by glacial ice. The Driftless area was never glaciated. Lakes are common in areas that were once glaciated, the kettles and uneven terrain provide many opportunities for lakes to form. But as you move into areas that have not been glaciated, the lakes become few, for the drainage systems have had time to erode material to fill the lakes and cut through glacial till dams. Which is why there are few lakes in the Driftless area, and why large scale local flooding there on the scale we are talking about, is impossible.
Charting the location of every dropstone would be interesting, but very impractical. William R. Corliss in his books and web site on geological anomalies does provide a listing of erratics in locations where they should not be, and some of those could be where they are because they are dropstones. According to Corliss these rocks are found around the world at elevations ranging up to 4,000 ft.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by edge, posted 04-18-2002 6:11 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by edge, posted 04-25-2002 10:51 PM wmscott has replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 267 of 460 (8979)
04-25-2002 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Percy
04-18-2002 10:19 PM


Percipient
Whether or not that web site has honest or dishonest business practices doesn't matter, what I was referring to is the genetic work it was based on. Which you seem to accept, and that was my point. The dating differences are to be expected considering the preconceptions and how they are arrived at. All in all, I consider the genetic information very favorable to my point of view that there was a genetic bottle neck towards the end of the ice age.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Percy, posted 04-18-2002 10:19 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Percy, posted 04-26-2002 3:16 PM wmscott has replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 268 of 460 (8981)
04-25-2002 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Joe Meert
04-19-2002 1:49 AM


Joe Meert
I have done a fair amount of posting and I don't remember all of the details, but I believe we did most of our correspondence on another board. It seems we didn't get into too many details, perhaps I can go into a few here and clear up some of your misconceptions and prejudices.
First I accept the fossil record, the geological record, the great age of the earth and life, and the evidence for the many events that have occurred in the geological record such as the numerous ice ages. I use and refer to the record of sealevel changes in connection with the ice ages. I believe that the flood itself was too brief to leave more than a trace in the record and nearly everyone has been misguided by the YEC flood theories resulting in their having totally wrong expectations as to what evidence the flood would leave behind. In my book I spend most of a chapter on the "creationist scholars from the 19th century (Aggasiz) who concluded that the evidence argued AGAINST a global flood" and how and why they reached that conclusion. I too believe that those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it. I found this chapter in the history of science to be an interesting turning point at which I consider science took a wrong turn due to having misguided expectations due to YEC flood theories which is why I would blame YECs more than the scientific community for the scientific rejection of the deluge.
I have a theory consistence with what is known about the earth and base much of my argument on the geological evidence. You would know this if you had bothered to read my book. I would be willing to e-mail you a copy if your moral scruples prevent you from spending your money on what you view as a fringe book, if you would be willing to read it. I don't place much value on the opinions of people who review books they have never read. Your opinion would carry far more weight if you knew what you where talking about, and I would be interested in having a response from a geologist on my book, even if it is a negative one. Just be specific in what is wrong and exactly why you think it is wrong.
I have taken your advice about submitting my ideas to a scientific journal which is why I have cut back on my posting here. I am using the extra time to get ahead on my other projects so I can work on an article to submit to a scientific journal later in the year. On arguing to geologists, you are a geologist. So I am starting to reach geologists by posting on a BB. I have already anticipated the possible problems I will have in submitting to scientific journals, and will attempt to get pass their knee-jerk radar, which will affect how and what I can say. Which is one of the main reasons I self published first, for the freedom and precedence. Now I can take my time and publish the bits and pieces that taken together will point to a deluge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Joe Meert, posted 04-19-2002 1:49 AM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Joe Meert, posted 04-25-2002 7:24 PM wmscott has replied
 Message 271 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-26-2002 12:06 AM wmscott has replied

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 269 of 460 (8983)
04-25-2002 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by wmscott
04-25-2002 6:04 PM


quote:
I have taken your advice about submitting my ideas to a scientific journal which is why I have cut back on my posting here. I am using the extra time to get ahead on my other projects so I can work on an article to submit to a scientific journal later in the year. On arguing to geologists, you are a geologist. So I am starting to reach geologists by posting on a BB. I have already anticipated the possible problems I will have in submitting to scientific journals, and will attempt to get pass their knee-jerk radar, which will affect how and what I can say. Which is one of the main reasons I self published first, for the freedom and precedence. Now I can take my time and publish the bits and pieces that taken together will point to a deluge.

JM: I appreciate that you are doing geology 'the right way' by submitting your work for review. At the same time, most reviewers are not 'knee-jerk' activists. They will carefully consider your ideas and if they have merit, they will be published. There are several geologists on this board and I suspect the grief you are getting from them is based on their knowledge of science rather than knee-jerk opposition to your ideas. If your ideas are not well received here, have you ever thought that they might be (a) wrong or (b) not well argued? There is no need to send me your book or for me to buy it at this time as you are writing it up for a scientific journal which will require more rigour than a self-published book. When your paper is finished, I'd be happy to look through a draft.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by wmscott, posted 04-25-2002 6:04 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by wmscott, posted 05-03-2002 5:28 PM Joe Meert has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 270 of 460 (8985)
04-25-2002 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by wmscott
04-25-2002 6:00 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
edge
On my posting showing that the physical evidence fails to support a local flooding of the Driftless Area, you responded "Why do you keep whacking away at this strawman?" Am I to understand that you accept the dropstones found there could not be from a local flood?

Maybe it was not clear what you were saying. However, I do not remember your evidence saying this. You said that it could not be due to backing up the Mississippi River or some other reason. You did not rule out a periglacial lake.
quote:
"Are you saying that a 15 m rise in sea level was a global flood?" I am predicting that the flood was a very brief event followed by rapid flexing of the earth's crust in response to the shift in pressures on it. This would appear in the geological record as a sudden jump from the pre flood sea level to the post flood sea level, since the flood itself was to quick to leave more than a few traces. The post LGM sealevel jump of at least 15m could very well be that predicted jump.
Can you show us any evidence the the crust will flex "rapidly?" Am I to understand then that your global flood left no evidence except at elevations lower than 1000 feet? That is convenient for your model, since it relieves you of the burden of evidence.
quote:
On lake Michigan, it rests in a bed craved by glacial ice. The Driftless area was never glaciated. Lakes are common in areas that were once glaciated, the kettles and uneven terrain provide many opportunities for lakes to form. But as you move into areas that have not been glaciated, the lakes become few, for the drainage systems have had time to erode material to fill the lakes and cut through glacial till dams. Which is why there are few lakes in the Driftless area, and why large scale local flooding there on the scale we are talking about, is impossible.[/quoe]
So, periglacial lakes are impossible on the edge of the ice sheet? What do you think of places like Lake Missoula? Are they imaginary?
[quote]Charting the location of every dropstone would be interesting, but very impractical. William R. Corliss in his books and web site on geological anomalies does provide a listing of erratics in locations where they should not be, and some of those could be where they are because they are dropstones. According to Corliss these rocks are found around the world at elevations ranging up to 4,000 ft.

Please document this. Show us that the sheets of the ice age left dropstones over large areas of the world at 4000' elevation. Even if so, do you realize that this would still not be a global flood? A significant part of the continents is well above 4000'.
Sorry, wmscott. Still not convincing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by wmscott, posted 04-25-2002 6:00 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by wmscott, posted 05-03-2002 5:18 PM edge has replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 271 of 460 (8986)
04-26-2002 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by wmscott
04-25-2002 6:04 PM


wmscott, I wish you good luck at getting published. But, might a "semi-popular" "journal" such as Discover maybe be a better target? I would think that Discover would be, to some degree, peer reviewed.
By the way, as of 4/10/02, you have received a rather harsh review at:
Amazon.com /ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F0%5F1/102-1780506-1693707
I believe I have not previously posted to this topic. I have not been following it very closely. Maybe I'll now get back to reading the entire thing, and maybe it's "Talk Origins" counterparts.
Regards,
Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 04-25-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by wmscott, posted 04-25-2002 6:04 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by wmscott, posted 05-03-2002 5:22 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024