Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the ultimate question
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 59 (9821)
05-16-2002 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Tranquility Base
05-16-2002 9:34 PM


:I'm an experimental and theoretical molecular biologist working on genomics and protein folding (but I am still a theoretical physicist at heart) TC."
--Very nice to hear, we need to even out this lop-sided debate in here.
"Having said that I have read a lot of research level material (reviews and monographs) on paelontology and sedimentology/stratigraphy/tectonics. I have taught myself in detail how paleontology works (and am interested to read these guys comments) and now have a good appreciation for the afore mentioned aspects of mainstream geology. But on quantitative models (whether creationist or evolutionist) I will always have to discuss other peoples work. On moelcular and genomic issues I can talk first hand."
--I can fully agree, I regularely read up on Geology related topics, I have read many books. I may finish my first YEC book though soon, Radioisotopes and the age of the earth, a very nice critique of radioisotopic dating and geochemistry which I admire. Also, please please if you have any material or references which you no longer have use for, I would be most pleased if you would give/sell them to me. I am always on the look out for new material and scientific references.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-16-2002 9:34 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Joe Meert, posted 05-16-2002 10:26 PM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 49 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-16-2002 10:33 PM TrueCreation has not replied

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


Message 47 of 59 (9833)
05-16-2002 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by TrueCreation
05-16-2002 9:43 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
:I'm an experimental and theoretical molecular biologist working on genomics and protein folding (but I am still a theoretical physicist at heart) TC."
--Very nice to hear, we need to even out this lop-sided debate in here.
"Having said that I have read a lot of research level material (reviews and monographs) on paelontology and sedimentology/stratigraphy/tectonics. I have taught myself in detail how paleontology works (and am interested to read these guys comments) and now have a good appreciation for the afore mentioned aspects of mainstream geology. But on quantitative models (whether creationist or evolutionist) I will always have to discuss other peoples work. On moelcular and genomic issues I can talk first hand."
--I can fully agree, I regularely read up on Geology related topics, I have read many books. I may finish my first YEC book though soon, Radioisotopes and the age of the earth, a very nice critique of radioisotopic dating and geochemistry which I admire. Also, please please if you have any material or references which you no longer have use for, I would be most pleased if you would give/sell them to me. I am always on the look out for new material and scientific references.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by TrueCreation, posted 05-16-2002 9:43 PM TrueCreation has not replied

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


Message 48 of 59 (9834)
05-16-2002 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Tranquility Base
05-16-2002 9:34 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:I'm an experimental and theoretical molecular biologist working on genomics and protein folding (but I am still a theoretical physicist at heart) TC.
Having said that I have read a lot of research level material (reviews and monographs) on paelontology and sedimentology/stratigraphy/tectonics. I have taught myself in detail how paleontology works (and am interested to read these guys comments) and now have a good appreciation for the afore mentioned aspects of mainstream geology. But on quantitative models (whether creationist or evolutionist) I will always have to discuss other peoples work. On moelcular and genomic issues I can talk first hand.
Hmm, it seems you have simply omitted the study of the tedious basics of introductory courses and gone right to the professional stuff. Frankly, it shows in your arguments. For instance, somewhere above, you seemed to equate mud with soil. Do you really think this was the right approach?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-16-2002 9:34 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-16-2002 10:35 PM edge has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 59 (9838)
05-16-2002 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by TrueCreation
05-16-2002 9:43 PM


Yes the RATE book is nice. I'd been wanting to see that graph on isotopic age vs stratigraphic age for 15 years. Are you aware that they did experimentally meaure the helium diffusion rate in granites (in the book they were still using extapolations from Argon rates). The diffusion rates back up their arguemnt completely - there is far, far (100,000-fold) too much helium in granites. It should all be in the air (and it's not there):
http://www.icr.org/headlines/ratereport.html
looks like you got the books from Joe. I need mine.
------------------
You are go for TLI

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by TrueCreation, posted 05-16-2002 9:43 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Joe Meert, posted 05-16-2002 10:40 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 59 (9839)
05-16-2002 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by edge
05-16-2002 10:29 PM


I'm here to learn Edge. Mud is more clay isn't it? So what happens to transported soil - gets sorted I guess? But in some instances I can imagine soils being deposited unsorted. I do read introductory txts as well but I obviously don't retain everything. I had to learn what shale, sily, clay, limestone etc was. I enjoy it - I'm sort of taking up geology/paleontology as a hobby even minus the creaiton stuff.
------------------
You are go for TLI
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-16-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by edge, posted 05-16-2002 10:29 PM edge has not replied

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


Message 51 of 59 (9840)
05-16-2002 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Tranquility Base
05-16-2002 10:33 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Yes the RATE book is nice. I'd been wanting to see that graph on isotopic age vs stratigraphic age for 15 years. Are you aware that they did experimentally meaure the helium diffusion rate in granites (in the book they were still using extapolations from Argon rates). The diffusion rates back up their arguemnt completely - there is far, far (100,000-fold) too much helium in granites. It should all be in the air (and it's not there):

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-16-2002 10:33 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

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


Message 52 of 59 (9841)
05-16-2002 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Tranquility Base
05-16-2002 9:07 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]Edge, in my first point I simply wanted to point out that the idea of accelerated decay and associated radiogenic heating is a priori a sensible idea (for us). [/QUOTE]
Good. Then you have evidence I presume. I'd love to hear about it.
quote:
Almost every model starts out as a hand waving execise. You must know this.
I also know that some models never get beyond this stage. There are reasons for that.
quote:
So initially we put up with holes just as Darwinism did.
But Darwind did have some evidence. What is your evidence that radiodecay rates accelerated. What is your evidence for c-decay? We have to be allowed the opportunit to critically analyze this information.
quote:
But I am also aware of numerous quantitative studies by these guys as well so I'm satisfied that things are proceeding.
Good. Then you can quote them.
quote:
No one is trying to claim they have the ultimate answer yet!
Then why do you criticize evolution for not having the ultimate, detailed information, preferrably quantifiable? Seems that you could be a little more charitable toward the ToE.
quote:
Do I expect mainstreamers to have all the answers? No, but then neither should you of us.
Actually, all we have asked for is evidence.
quote:
In the first instance we should see which model explains the gross structure of the geological column better. I honestly believe it is the flood model and will post on this.
It hasn't helped yet. We don't even know which rocks represent the flood.
quote:
I'll also post my stuff on cycothems soon - all I'll be saying is that there seems to be overwhelming evidence that these were rapdily formed (including coal) and they represent 100s and 1000s of feet of the geological column.
The first problem is that there are so many of them. Is this the multiple flood model? Is it described in the bible? The second problem is that mainstream science is way ahead of you. Catastrophism is not denied at all. It's just that there were many catastrophes sometime with long time periods in between. Otherwise, how did those trees grow so many times in the same place?
quote:
It begs the question whether much of the column was catastrophically generated, and perhaps in one event. Sure you guys can say that only that component was rapid but it still begs the question.
No, not one event. Many thousands. But yes there were catastrophes. It's all part of uniformitarianism.
quote:
Accelerated decay and rapid drift? The two have only recently been linked anyway. It follows quite naturally that vast radioheating might generate rapid reversals.
Yeah. It would also sterilize the earth. I know, I know... these are just details!
quote:
I can't personally gaurentee that but lets keep an eye on the cals ans ims coming out. And let me have a look at what has been done too.
I'll get some calcualtions to you later. The problem is bigger than you think.
quote:
Do you really think that the mainstream solution to all of this is so good? See my thread on 'Mainstream continental drift'.
Well, it isn't perfect, but it is the best thing going.
[This message has been edited by edge, 05-16-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-16-2002 9:07 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by TrueCreation, posted 05-16-2002 10:57 PM edge has replied
 Message 57 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-16-2002 11:58 PM edge has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 59 (9848)
05-16-2002 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by edge
05-16-2002 10:42 PM


"It hasn't helped yet. We don't even know which rocks represent the flood. "
--.....? Come now.. Lets get past this we both myself and Tranquility have given our 2 cents on our current argument for Flood associated deposits, Cambrian --> Tertiary.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by edge, posted 05-16-2002 10:42 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by edge, posted 05-16-2002 11:08 PM TrueCreation has replied

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


Message 54 of 59 (9851)
05-16-2002 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by TrueCreation
05-16-2002 10:57 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"It hasn't helped yet. We don't even know which rocks represent the flood. "
--.....? Come now.. Lets get past this we both myself and Tranquility have given our 2 cents on our current argument for Flood associated deposits, Cambrian --> Tertiary.
True enough. You get credit for that. However, a look at the creationist literature leaves one groping for a handle. Henceforth, I will assume that you mean Cambrian through Tertiary. Details will be investigated later, but I suggest that you begin to think about the types of deposits that you find in the middle of your flood and the presence of dinosaur nests, tracks, etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by TrueCreation, posted 05-16-2002 10:57 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by TrueCreation, posted 05-16-2002 11:14 PM edge has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 59 (9853)
05-16-2002 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by edge
05-16-2002 11:08 PM


"True enough. You get credit for that. However, a look at the creationist literature leaves one groping for a handle. Henceforth, I will assume that you mean Cambrian through Tertiary. Details will be investigated later, but I suggest that you begin to think about the types of deposits that you find in the middle of your flood and the presence of dinosaur nests, tracks, etc. "
--Yes, I have been asked these questions previously, ready when you are.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by edge, posted 05-16-2002 11:08 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Joe Meert, posted 05-16-2002 11:36 PM TrueCreation has not replied

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


Message 56 of 59 (9857)
05-16-2002 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by TrueCreation
05-16-2002 11:14 PM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by TrueCreation, posted 05-16-2002 11:14 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 59 (9858)
05-16-2002 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by edge
05-16-2002 10:42 PM


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..
2, The cyclothems are most likely due to the multiple (tidal?) surges of a single flood IMO. I will cite a mainstream journal on this point soon that backs this up.
------------------
You are go for TLI

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by edge, posted 05-16-2002 10:42 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Joe Meert, posted 05-17-2002 12:16 AM Tranquility Base has replied

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


Message 58 of 59 (9861)
05-17-2002 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Tranquility Base
05-16-2002 11:58 PM


[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:
2, The cyclothems are most likely due to the multiple (tidal?) surges of a single flood IMO. I will cite a mainstream journal on this point soon that backs this up.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-16-2002 11:58 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-17-2002 12:50 AM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 59 (9867)
05-17-2002 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Joe Meert
05-17-2002 12:16 AM


OK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Joe Meert, posted 05-17-2002 12:16 AM Joe Meert 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