Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,813 Year: 3,070/9,624 Month: 915/1,588 Week: 98/223 Day: 9/17 Hour: 5/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Non-marine sediments
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 3 of 221 (9999)
05-20-2002 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Tranquility Base
05-20-2002 1:06 AM


Let's try to narrow our topics a bit in the interest of economy. For example, I still want to know what sediments (in the conventional column) are pre, syn and post flood. I promise to answer your (BROAD) question. Simply put, there is no 'all encompassing answer".
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-20-2002 1:06 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 5 of 221 (10443)
05-28-2002 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Tranquility Base
05-27-2002 10:57 PM


quote:
Certainly at Grand Canyon there are large non-marine formations that are comprised of neatly stacked layers. How is that explained in a mainstream context? If it's flood after flood there should be thousands of unconformaties (interfaces with gullies and erosion) as we travel down the local column in these beds disrupting the neat parallel stacking.
JM: I guess I am troubled by your use of 'flood after flood'. What exactly do you mean? There are many thick non-marine rock layers (the Navajo sandstone, Fish River Formation and many units within the Vindhyanchal basin come to mind). I think you need a field trip!
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-27-2002 10:57 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-28-2002 12:44 AM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 35 of 221 (10880)
06-03-2002 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Tranquility Base
06-03-2002 3:00 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
And here are the beginnings of my evidence of the flood-like character of the Suppai: a comment I found on the Suppai formation at a presumably mainstream Grand Canyon site:
http://www.und.edu/instruct/mineral/101intro/grandcanyon/grandcan.htm
This is code for 'flood'. I'll have to look at what they're getting at but it may be what I am saying. I think the Supai even to a layman's eye doesn't look like eons of normal non-marine processes. We'll see, I'm not trying to do anything but support scientifically what I can actually see with my eyes.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-03-2002]

JM: Could not help but notice you left this out:
1000' thick series (group) of alternating red crossbedded sandstones and shales. The upper part of the group is non-marine and tracks of quadrupeds are found on bed tops. These tracks are believed to have been made by amphibians or primitive reptiles.
This is code-word for NO flood.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-03-2002 3:00 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-03-2002 8:02 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 49 of 221 (10937)
06-04-2002 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Tranquility Base
06-04-2002 1:12 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]^ I agree!
But the significance is that for most of a century they pretended that gradualism was true! If one thinks that something is true it's amazing how facts can be shoehorned to support it. That so-called 'evidence' of gradualism was transferred to evidence for evolution in general in the minds of everybody which was not justified. That is what we think happened in the whole evolution issue. I will soon start my paleontology thread and outline what I have discovered about how paleontology really works.[/QUOTE]
JM: Why not stick with one topic rather than try the Gish gallop through the board? The Gish gallop is quite successful in oral debate, but on these boards in tends to mute meaningful discussion. I do have some comments regarding some of the issues wehappyfew brought up here and elsewhere. One example that comes immediately to mind (having just finished a proposal) is the Vindhyanchal Supergroup of central India. This 5000+ m Precambrian sequence is of low metamorphic grade. According to you (and I am being generous) it was deposited at 0.5m/day (and rejecting your attempt to rewrite the days of the bible)! That's intriguing because this formation preserves stromatolites (blue green algae columns) that must have been growing at similar rates (can you find a modern analogue to that?). It preserves a host of sedimentary structures such as cross beds, ripple marks, load casts and trace fossils as well. The Lower Vindhyan is separated from the Upper Vindhyan by an angular unconformity. This means that ALL the lower Vindhyan was deposited, lithified and tilted prior to the deposition of the Upper Vindhyan. The Vindhyan Supergroup also contains a fine correlatable record of magnetic reversals within the group which you say occurred during the flood (as I recall). Younger overlap onto the Vindhyan is incomplete (seems weird that the flood would not be able to cover all of the Vindhyan). I dare say, you've got some problems that can be alleviated by abandoning the ye-framework and forcing the bible to fit your own bias. By the way, before you get all giddy about the Cambrian 'explosion' you might want to examine the recent literature. It seems it is becoming less and less explosive!
Cheers
Joe Meert
[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 06-04-2002]
[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 06-04-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-04-2002 1:12 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-04-2002 2:23 AM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 51 of 221 (10940)
06-04-2002 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Minnemooseus
06-04-2002 1:42 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by minnemooseus:
[B] "(i) based on today's processes" - Yes, there's that uniformitarianism again. A solid, fundimental geological principle.
"(ii) massaged to support the radioisotopic dates" - I try to not emphasize radiometric dating, for it leads to the popular (mis)preception that it is the only age determaning method. But, yes, radiometric dating is indeed a powerful tool. And, yes, you are correct in that the radiometric dating only provides beginning and ending time boundries. It says nothing about the rates of details between those boundries. It does give a minimum rate for the entire interval, but that is all.[/QUOTE]
JM: What is going to be particularly disconcerting for creationists is when radiometric dating starts to be applied systematically to sedimentary rocks. I just finished an excellent paper on some Neoproterozoic glacial rocks in China (phosphorites) that were dated using U-Pb and Lu-Hf methods. Radiometric dating on interbedded volcanics has already estasblished itself as a useful chronometer in the Phanerozoic.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-04-2002 1:42 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-04-2002 2:29 AM Joe Meert has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 55 of 221 (10946)
06-04-2002 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Tranquility Base
06-04-2002 2:29 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Dating of sedimentary rocks will give the 'age' of the igneous particles making up the sedimentary rock. unles I am missing something, this will esentially give geologists a handle on the origin of the sediment. Sounds scientifically interesting for both sides IMO.
JM: You need to hit those textbooks again as you are incorrect! Look up the term authigenic. You might also want to see how one determines igneous minerals from sedimentary or metamorphic. It makes interesting reading. As for the 0.5m/day, I was being generous to ye-creationism. Your 1000 year day is quite outside the mainstream and reads more like an excuse than anything else. You also need to read about stromatolites, there is no doubt these are in-situ and to argue otherwise you'll need to show some field evidence.
Cheers
Joe Meert
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-04-2002 2:29 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-04-2002 8:48 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 61 of 221 (10992)
06-05-2002 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Tranquility Base
06-05-2002 1:31 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]^ I'm very aware of the need for detailed scholarly work in any endevour. I simply made a propositon based on a preliminary look at the data and I am willing to accept your assesment that (i) many non-marine beds tell a story that may be inconsistent with the flood and (ii) I/we need to get into the details.[/QUOTE]
JM: No, the strata on earth argue unequivocally against a global Noachian flood. Your 'proposition' has already been proven false by a wealth of scientific observation. You cling to it for religious rather than scientific reasons. That's fine, so long as you acknowledge the source of your dogma.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-05-2002 1:31 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-05-2002 2:24 AM Joe Meert has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 64 of 221 (11005)
06-05-2002 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Tranquility Base
06-05-2002 2:24 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Our hypothesis is that mainstream geology has religiously clung to Lyellian interpretations and shoehorned the data because early on the possibility of a huge deluge laying vast beds was never properly considered. You find it amazing that I believe what I believe but I find it equally so that you believe in placid epeiric seas despite systematic evidence of rapid currents unlike any shelf floor today. We each find it hard to believe what the other does and we both claim the other has 'religious' beliefs.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-05-2002]

JM: Not properly considered? ROTFL!! The Noachian flood story held sway until the weight of the evidence fell against it! You ought to read some Historical geology papers and books as well. I can easily show that your claim of 'religiously' clinging to dogma is wrong for conventional geology. Here are three reasons:
(1) Noachian Flood-Diluvialists-Held forth by people like Sedgwick and Cuvier. Heck even Lyell was trained in diluvialist theory. But Lyell chose to look at the rocks and encouraged Sedgwick and others to do the same. Sedgwick looked at the data more carefully and concluded the notion of the Noachian flood was rather stupid (I'm paraphrasing his words to the geological society). That the Noachian deluge is no longer considered is evidence of the science willing to change due to new evidence.
(2) Static Continents: Geologists once held that continents were static in their present location. As new evidence came forth to show that they were not, geology underwent a revolution in thinking and adopted the new paradigm called plate tectonics. Proof again that geology yields to the evidence.
(3)Young age for the earth- Geologists once thought the earth was young until they began to closely study the rock record. People like Joly and Hutton concluded that it must be much older. Kelvin analyzed the thermal structure of the earth (as had Comte de Buffon) and concluded the earth was somewhere between 20-100 million years old. Kelvin's analysis held sway until the discovery of radioactive decay (more importantly the heat released by decay) and slowly the age of the earth was established at 4.5 Ga. Proof again that geology is swayed by the evidence and not dogmatic.
Note the difference. There is NO piece of evidence anywhere that will change the mind of a creationist with regard to their peculiar interpretation of Genesis. Yet, creationists are loathe to talk about the disharmony within their own camps regarding the Noachian deluge. You've got, for example, Setterfield insisting the whole thing is Precambrian, you are insisting it is Cambrian through Cretaceous, TC insists its Cambrian through Tertiary. Others are insisting it's all Paleozoic. Yet none of you have stopped to consider the fact that maybe you can't agree on the time of the flood because the evidence is not clear. I would argue, as would any geologist who has bothered to look at the rocks, that there simply is no evidence for a Noachian type deluge. The difference between creationism and modern geology is that modern geology yields (sometimes reluctantly) to evidence and the evidence against a global flood was long ago settled. Geology does not debate this anymore, since evidence against a global flood is present in nearly every outcrop on earth!
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-05-2002 2:24 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-11-2002 2:40 AM Joe Meert has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 72 of 221 (11363)
06-11-2002 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Tranquility Base
06-11-2002 2:40 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Joe, I can't find accounts of anyone back then (ie 19th century) proposing that the flood might have (i) rapidly produced layering by hydrodynamic sorting, (ii) occurred in surges so as to account for marine/non-marine alternating beds and (iii) that large canyons wer carved out of soft sediment. I don't know if this is because (a) these guy's voices weren't loud enough or (b) they didn't exist or (c) I haven't done enough reading. Buckland put the flood down to only the top gravel layers in England. Cuvier talked about multiple floods - OK, close to our modern day surges but I'm pretty sure he talked about great ages. Sedwick was pretty much on our side but seemed not to be able to imagine catastrophic flow cutting through soft layers dying down to modern day flows. Unless you can show me otherwise I have not come across anything like the modern flood geology synthesis.
Creationists change there models all the time too just as evoltuionists do. The creationism of 2002 is hardly recognizable as that of the 1970s. I like the scientific disharmony amongst us, I find it healthy - I didn't like the solidarity of the 1970s and 1980s. This disharmony might be due to our being wrong but it equally well could be because it is a dificult problem and it is early days for us.

JM: Why look for second order effects of a global flood when the first order effects are completely absent? Geologists abandonded the flood model because there was no clear evidence for it. That alone should hint that this 'global catastrophe' was not. The disharmony amongst creationists is not a good sign. The bible is supposed to be an unambiguous literal text as should be the evidence for a global flood. So, why can't you guys even agree on the simplest matter "that's a flood rock" and "that's not"?
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-11-2002 2:40 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-11-2002 11:42 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 152 of 221 (12324)
06-28-2002 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Tranquility Base
06-25-2002 12:09 AM


quote:
Multiple tectonically induced tidal waves could have rapidly uprooted vegetation, deposited sediment and coal and hence produced cyclothems. Inbetween each wave would be catastrophic fresh water flooding due to the 40 days of rain. I'm planning to read Austin's origin work on the floating mat model so I wont propose a detailed model until I've read the masters work.

JM: This is why your model is senseless. YOu call on multiple tectonically induced tidal waves depositing 'coal'? Don't you mean source material for later coal formation? What does not make sense to me is the 'razor-fine' contacts established during these 'events'. You are proposing forces that are more known for their chaotic erosive and depositional effects rather than for producing finely laminated sedimentary deposits. Do an experiment. Mix some sand and fresh vegetation in water and slosh it rapidly back and forth over a flat surface and tell me what results. You get nothing like cyclothems. As far as your cry about consistent paleocurrents, I again ask you the question of scale. If we examine the current direction along the western side of the present-day Andes mountains, the prevailing currents would be westwardly. On the eastern side of the Andes, the prevailing currents would be easterly. Your implication, and it is quite misleading (if not outright fraudulent) is that ALL Paleozoic sediments in the US exhibit a SW paleocurrent. This is false. The correct statement is that there is a prevailing SW paleocurrent observed in the sediments where paleocurrents are evident. Within the prevailing SW-directed paleocurrents, there is variability reflecting local topography. I finally note that in your chaotic scenario of tidal waves and chaotic fresh water flooding, the last thing one would expect is a consistent paleocurrent direction. Your conclusion has blinded you to your own inconsistencies!
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-25-2002 12:09 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-30-2002 9:30 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 159 of 221 (12444)
07-01-2002 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Tranquility Base
07-01-2002 12:14 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge - the point is that there is a statistically significant non-zero bias! Why else would mainstream researchers come to the conclusion that the 'sandstone was brought in by SW currents'. It has no Biblical conotations until one appreciates the sub-continental scope of the event. The word flood would be used if it were not over such a large area. You don't agree, fine - I am simply telling you my impression.
How does one get sandstones brought in from the NE over continental distances? You have a paleoslope. but the point is that there was a shallow freshwater inland sea (lake) there periodically. Are you talking periodic uplift/subsidence, 50 times, with always the same pattern?
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-30-2002]

JM: I'll repeat what has been mentioned elsewhere. You've not made a very good case for a flood with your cyclothem claims nor your paleocurrent claims. As I and others have mentioned, and you've yet to supply an answer, the paleocurrent data you supply do not support a global flood model. Consistency is not likely in such a tumultuous event as you have elsewhere described nor is the depositional model realistic. You can sit there and claim it is until you are blue in the face, but until you actually publish your experiments and all the data (not cribbed material from creationists) you've not made a case. The geologists here are growing tired of you, not because you are making a strong case, but because you fail to defend your case with even a modicum of data. Surely a Ph.Ded scientist knows the value of supplying data to defend a case. A Ph.Ded scientist should also know the value of publishing those data. Why not write up a paper and let us review it? Make it complete with references and data so that we can critically evaluate it. All you've done so far is post a few links and a couple of text passages. I know that you are well aware that such items do not make for a strong scientific paper. We hold you to a much higher standard than the high-schoolers posting here because you should know better. Go ahead, write the paper, and come back at us with data rather than sweeping generalizations. Then we can make some headway.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-01-2002 12:14 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-01-2002 1:04 AM Joe Meert has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 161 of 221 (12447)
07-01-2002 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Tranquility Base
07-01-2002 1:04 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Joe I agree with some of what you've said. However, I am utterly convinced that the data I have outlined points to the flood.
I know exactly what sort of research I would do if I was a career flood geologist. I'm not so you wont get that paper. I'm aware of the enornmous amount of work required to formalise what I'm saying and I'll keep an eye out for papers in CEN TJ etc so that I can post other peoples work along these lines.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-01-2002]

JM: Publishing in creationist vanity journals is not going to convince anyone (other than creationists) that you are on to anything. I am editor of Gondwana Research and would be happy to receive your article for review. You would need to slant it toward Gondwana, but given that you are talking about all this during a Pangea time frame (creationist years), I think it could fit in the journal. You can find author guidelines at: http://gondwanaresearch.com
You may be utterly convinced that you are on to something, but you've not supplied any good support for a global flood on these pages. Just a bunch of over-generalizations and 'couldabeens'. Hardly the stuff of paradigm shifts. The invitation is given to you to submit your article.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-01-2002 1:04 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-01-2002 1:44 AM Joe Meert has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 163 of 221 (12455)
07-01-2002 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Tranquility Base
07-01-2002 1:44 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ Thanks for the invite. If I was a flood geologist I would certainly publish mainstream (as well as creationist - it's nice to be able to write openly creationist sometimes too). But this project is not one that can be done by moonlighting (without destroying my family life).
JM: That's the rub? I've looked through all your posts once again and found precious little unambiguous support for your claims. Sweeping generalizations and 'couldabeens' are pretty lousy science as we both know. Perhaps, if you could even sit down for a week or two and publish a coherent web page with some supporting data. That would certainly lead to a more reasoned discussion. As you might imagine, your ideas--no matter how logical to you--are going to meet with resistance from those of us who have looked at a fair number of the rocks you are speaking about. There is much to be said for a fresh outlook, but unless you supply meaningful and coherent data with that outlook, you're going to be met with criticism (if not outright hostility). You take the typical novice approach to the data by making sweeping generalizations about topics which many of us have researched well beyond your cursory views. You MIGHT be right, but without any data to back your position, you are unlikely to convince anyone other than those who were already convinced. I repeat, we are going to be more demanding of you than the high-schoolers on here because you should know the rigors of science. So take a few weeks (or months) and develop something internally consistent. I'll wait!
Cheers
joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-01-2002 1:44 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-01-2002 2:15 AM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 167 of 221 (12605)
07-02-2002 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Tranquility Base
07-02-2002 8:52 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]Edge
Regardless of whether it was a paleoslope or not the data clearly demonstrates that the sandstones were deposited as sheets by a flood. And this happened every cyclothem cycle.[/QUOTE]
JM: No, this is not true. If the data were so clear, then geologist would have reached a similar conclusion. Your flood makes no sense. Flood surges are not rhythmic.
quote:
The fact that global flood geolgoists exist shouldn't stop mainstreamers from correctly identifying that much of the non-marine geological column was deposited by vast but possibly local floods.
JM: In contrast to the flood geologists, real ones look at the data and let the data lead them to the conclusions. Creationists have already assumed the conclusion and toss out the parts that disagree or ignore the details.
quote:
Where on earth do you get non-marine sandstone sheet depositon over such a distance under rapid flow? If you find somewhere it will be a flood! The cyclothem sandstones were depostied by flood(s)!
JM: Probably from looking at the rocks as most good geologists do. You've focussed so much on N.A. Where are the similar data from other continents (synchronous with NA)? You won't find it. Do you know why?
quote:
You need subsidence to get a shallow lake where a slope used to be! And you need it time and time again (50 times) in the same place in the same 3D pattern!
JM: HUH?
[QUOTE]We simply propose that the cyclothems are themselves flood deposits. As simple as that. It is a model. If you want to rule it out becasue of uniformitarian bias feel free.[/b]
JM: You are simply wrong without having to resort to uniformitarianism. The rock record says so. Without breaking my toe on a rock, you can imagine me kicking one and saying "I reject your notion thusly"!
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-02-2002 8:52 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-02-2002 9:42 PM Joe Meert has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 170 of 221 (12625)
07-02-2002 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Tranquility Base
07-02-2002 9:42 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]Joe
SW paleocurrents in sandstones strewn across half a continent is a large flood. It is mainstream bias to deny that.[/QUOTE]
JM: Actually, you have only claimed this without evidence. What's even worse is that you've claimed it for non-marine strata. That's a very poor start on your part.
quote:
You have equally well predetermined your mechanisms as we have.
JM: You show your naivete both as a geologist and as a scientist. A good scientist may start with a bias, but will ultimately yield to the data. I have looked at the rocks you speak of. Can you say the same thing?
quote:
Tas Walker has done flood analyses on Australian basins. As a beginner I will study the dat I can get my hands on easily.
JM: Tas Walker, like you, is a creationist first and like you, is not a geologist. Why should his unpublished stories carry any weight. If you, or Tas, or Barry want to change the status quo, you need to assemble a coherent publishable model. The web may help you appeal to the general public, but you will go unnoticed by modern science.
quote:
Why Huh? There was a shallow fresh water lake cyclically where your supossed SW slope was. That requires ridiculous fine tuning of tectonics. You simply don't want to allow for even regional flooding! It is dead obvious.
JM: Actually, it requires a stable continental area and that's it. Yours requires a rhythmic catastrophic flood with continents changing positions and rotating kilometers per day. If you think your model is consistent, then publish it! Quit pussyfooting around on the web hoping to convince high-schoolers that you are correct!
[QUOTE]TB: Huh?[/b]
JM:Exactly!
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-02-2002 9:42 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-02-2002 10:54 PM 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