|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: the ultimate question | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
: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. ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5680 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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: 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?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5680 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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
[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: I also know that some models never get beyond this stage. There are reasons for that.
quote: 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: Good. Then you can quote them.
quote: 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: Actually, all we have asked for is evidence.
quote: It hasn't helped yet. We don't even know which rocks represent the flood.
quote: 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: No, not one event. Many thousands. But yes there were catastrophes. It's all part of uniformitarianism.
quote: Yeah. It would also sterilize the earth. I know, I know... these are just details!
quote: I'll get some calcualtions to you later. The problem is bigger than you think.
quote: Well, it isn't perfect, but it is the best thing going. [This message has been edited by edge, 05-16-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"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. ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"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. ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5680 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]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5680 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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
OK
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024