|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: the ultimate question | |||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
and don't forget those wacky paleosols!
http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/paleosol.htm Cheers Joe meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]^ Percy, I hope you saw from my smiley that I was mainly trying to be funny. But I still don't think anyone addressed the issue of why for 'thousands/millions of years' there would be red sandstone and then suddenly chalk for 'thousands/millions of years'. I really think this has to be hydrodynamic sorting although I don't deny the oranismal origin of chalk. Let's not sidetrack onto the bigger picture of the fact that you don't think the flood could generate much of the geological column. Let's look at this one issue for a minute.[/QUOTE] JM: Are you positive there is no evidence for a sedimentary break between these units? In fact, there are some sharp transitions between sedimentary facies, but more often than not, we see erosional evidence between beds or other information indicating that the transition took some time. However, let's use the 'hydrodynamic sorting of sediments' argument. Why would we find a redbed underlying a limestone which is in turn overlain by a conglomerate?
quote: JM: The problem with that is that there is no evidence for rapid reversals in the geologic record. It does not fit the land-ocean magnetic reversal pattern. You also end up with very shallow oceans ( http://gondwanaresearch.com/oceans.htm ).
quote: JM: The problem with rapid decay is shown http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/adam.htm quote: JM: I am familiar with the claims of creationists that these are problems, but I am also familiar with the fact that this is an 'invention' by misinterpretation! Cheers Joe Meert [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-15-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]Well I can't be absolutely positive about the conformity of the red/white layers I've seen on the NSW coast but it was a very flat interface. The one I can be sure of is cyclothems. Do you know about them?[/QUOTE] JM: Please read my post (as you have encouraged people to do with yours). I said in some cases, the transitions are smooth. In most, we see evidence of a hiatus.
quote: JM: No, it's based on a lack of evidence for rapid reversals by creationists. Merely stating they are fast is not the same as providing evidence! Besides, you've not defined the flood strata. Reversals are known from the Precambrian to recent in conventional geology.
quote: JM: I am saying then you have a heat problem. You also have not shown why rapid decay would influence dynamics in the outer core. Evidence please?
quote: JM: I am just waiting for your evidence. I cannot 'marry' bald assertions into any model.
quote: JM: So you say, but where is the evidence (your bald assertion aside)? The rapid drift model makes certain unbiased predictions such as the expected depth profile of the ocean floor. These predictions are based on non-controversial physics. Cheers Joe Meert [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-15-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]I don't believe you have corroborated your statement that the flood can't do these things. Creationist, and some mainstream published work, supports the idea that rapid flow can generate neat layering. And there is creationist work on the ordering issue - I have it in my hand - by Woodmorappe. Have you heard/read this stuff? I will show you the sources over the next few days but I suspect you are aware of them (have you seen 'the video' on sedimentation or 'the video' on Mt St Helens?). In fact the paelocurrent data shows that the vast beds of Nth America were mostly laid in the rapid flow regime.[/QUOTE] JM: I've read Woodmorrappe's evolutionary old earth articles under his real name Peczkis. Woody writes on both sides of the fence using two different names. Why should we trust anything he writes. Anyway, Woody's arguments have some problems ( http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/paleosol.htm ) I'll ask again. What rocks do you consider pre, post and syn flood using the standard column? Cheers Joe Meert [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-15-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: You're out of your league, yet you are certain that creationists have it right? I guess I don't follow such logic. The Cambrian has paleosols and there are paleosols right on through the Cretaceous. There are global glaciations (totally unambiguous) during the Precambrian, the Ordovician and the Permo-Triassic. There are thick aeolian deposits in that interval. So how do we get paleosols, glaciations, and aeolian deposits in a global tempest? Furthermore, how do we get Precambrian reversals? Tertiary reversals. The Cretaceous and Permo-Carboniferous are known for their long non-reversals (Kiaman and Cretaceous Long Normal). I thought the flood, along with some unexplained magically cool fast radioactive decay caused these reversals? I still have not heard the explanation for how decay triggered reversals. Cheers Joe Meert [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-15-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]Firstly I personally know two PhDed flood geologists, I myself am a PhDed physicist and I've read a lot of mainsteam and flood geology. I don't actaully like this compartmentalization of science and I currently do theoretical molecular biology research! That aside I am obviously swayed by the writings of the AIG and ICR creationists. But I have done a lot of mainstream geological reading too.[/QUOTE] JM: Are you arguing from authority here?
quote: JM: Yet, you are confident your 'boys' have it right? I guess that's up to you. However, for the sake of argument let's say that 90% of the interpretations are wrong. That leaves 10% correct and still a problem.
quote: JM: As long as they are in the scientific literature, I will be happy to look at them. If they are self-published books or journals, then the data (though possibly correct) are suspect.
quote: JM: Because they have not!
quote: JM: You brought up the subject. In general geologists do not call folding 'strata reversals' so I am talking about magnetic reversals. If the flood is Cambrian through Cretaceous then you have bracketed the two longest NON-REVERSING intervals known in earth history! What about all the Precambrian and Tertiary reversals? What about the paleosols found in the sequence? What about the glacial deposits? If you don't believe them, then what evidence can you supply (other than your own, admittedly untrained incredulity) to counter the evidence? I am all for discovery, but so far (in geology) all you've provided are bald assertions sans data. Surely a PhDed (as you say) physicist knows the importance of publishing ones data? Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Yes, but clearly outside your field. Your naivete shines through as clearly as mine would arguing about the physics of quantum gravity. Though I've read a few books on the subject and I am fascinated by it, I would look like a fool trying to argue the details of the subject. Snelling is not a geophysicist, nor is he a geochronologist and his arguments (like those of Austin-Nevins) also look very naive to anyone knowledgeable in the field. Baumgardner is your best source here. However, Baumgardner is known to author old-earth articles that run counter to his ye-stance. As a scientist you should find it odd that someone would agree to co-author a paper whose conclusions were so diametrically opposed to those stated in the paper. Yet, Baumgardner does this often. At the same time, Baumgardner's model missed something important. The first thing he missed is a discussion of the effects of his model on life (including those in the no-evidence ark). Superheated steam is generally not good for living organisms. Secondly, Baumgardner was so enamored with his runaway subduction that he forgot all about the new oceanic crust and how it should form and cool through time. These are not minor mistakes, but major blunders caused by forcing an extra-biblical intepretation on science. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: You do not have to inundate me with cylcothems! They are actually irrelevant to the discussion. Empirically, creationists dismissed the flood 150+ years ago and their evidence damning the Noachian flood is still valid. I've yet to see you answer my questions other than to say (in essence) "The bible can be interpreted to say it and that settles it for me"---until I need to reinterpret it! Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: Unpublished nonsense. Can you supply some scientifically published research to support your case? Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: They are vanity journals meant to circumvent the critical eyes of real science. Real science subjects itself to all criticisms. Austin is well aware that good science, even if biblical, can be published with strong supporting data. Surely a 'Phded' physicist know this as well. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Published where?
quote: JM: In fact, they've nothing more than unpublished conjecture at this point. I don't think you've grasped the difference between the St. Helen's trees and the Yellowstone forests. The St. Helen's logs simply don't fit the mold of the Yellowstone, sorry.
quote: JM: No, they've published nothing to support your assertion in the scientific journals.
quote: JM: By who? I can't think of a single publication in the scientific literature relating coal formation to floating vegetation mats after the Noachian flood. Perhaps you can point me to the published works?
quote: JM: More quote mining? Is this the sole basis for 'creation science'? It seems to be. Surely a 'PhDed physicist' working in the mainstream know the value of published works. Where did you get your Ph.D.? Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: TC, send me an e-mail jmeert@geology.ufl.edu. I would be willing to send you some textbooks that I no longer use (generally older editions, but still useful). Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: For a 'Phded' physicist 'working in the mainstream' you don't seem to understand the physics of helium. Why should it all be in the 'air'? Furthermore, the link you cited provides NO EXPERIMENTAL data. It is a statement that diffusion of He in biotites is fast. Big deal, they need not have spent money to show that. It also does not translate to rapid diffusion of helium out of all minerals. Such an extrapolation is absurd. Please try to post something with more substance (at least supply links with some data)! Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
TC: How about explaining the fossil termite nests found in the Jurassic? These mud dwellings are not likely to last through a Noachian tempest. My buddy Steve Hasiotis found these:
http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=3846 So, were termites aware that the flood was coming and god told them how to build flood resistant homes? Or what? While you're at it, how did these things make it through the global flood? Guess Noah was not the only organism living according to 'God's plan"
http://exn.ca/Stories/1998/10/27/52.asp By the way, Hasiotis is a devout Christian and member of the Greek Orthodox church. Cheers [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-16-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]Most of your points will be covered in my future posts. Let me just say for now (in case i die) that: 1. It's not c-decay, that has pretty much been dropped by us a long time ago. We already know that fundamental constants are evolving (you're aware of the fine structire constant result last year?). The RATE group (Baumgardner, Snelling, Austin, De Young et al) are studying which consants would do the job without destroying life as we know it. De Young is the physicist - nice guy, I've met him. I'm actually an ex-particle physicist so I'm waiting to see hat they come up with..[/QUOTE] JM: Still NO DATA!! Nice guys can be grossly wrong.
quote: JM: Still, only promises! This grows tiring. You are presenting nothing more than statements with nothing to back them up but promises that 'you will cite them'. Why not take a break, go find the appropriate references and data and return. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024