Essential dynamics & mechanisms of sea-level fluctuations

quote:

---

See my 'EDIT' to Edge as well as Moose's coment. I have mixed up the terms for trench and rift valley/ridge!

---

JM: Yes, and now you understand why I called your research sophomoric. If you want to argue a point, then you must also learn to argue the point with proper terminology. What you 'discovered' is something that is well known. Indeed, I gave you the reference to Larson's paper elsewhere on this page. I have also given you a reference to other sea-level change mechanisms in my HOG paper (http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/hogfinal.pdf ). TB, you're feeling persecuted, but remember you claimed to be a Ph.D.'ed scientist and therefore we insist on that level of scientific discourse from you. If you can't get the terms right or figure out how to access the relevant literature--then expect more terse responses.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Why is it that you think the tectonic changes were always so slow?

​

1. They're slow now

---

JM: Why do you insist on a caricature of science rather than a real view? The truth is that some tectonic changes are VERY fast. For example, in 1964, ground level in Juneau Alaska was changed by >10 feet in seconds. Others, such as the drifting of continents and the spreading of ocean floors take longer (on the order of centimeters per year). For this, we have multiple (and independent) sources of evidence. For example, we can observe it happening today. We know that conductive cooling predicts a specific bathymetry whereas rapid spreading ala Baumgardner predicts quite a different bathymetry. Modern bathymetry is consistent with slow spreading and conductive cooling of the oceanic crust (this has been pointed out to you before--see THE DEPTHS OF THE OCEANS ). Radiometric dating confirms the age profile (see discussion of point #3. Magnetostratigraphy paints a consistent picture of 'slow' (cm/year) spreading at the ridges. So the difference between the two models is something more than interpretation. You rely on the mythos of a Sumerian epic and science relies on mutually consistent observation. Merely repeating you mantra does not make your argument any stronger. It may reinforce it in your own brain, but repetition of false information brings no additional data to the table.

quote:

---

2. You presume that sediments alwyas collect at today's rates

---

JM: False and either (a) dishonest on your part or (b) sophomoric. Either way you've no point here.

quote:

---

3. You assume that radioisotopic decay has been constant

---

JM:: Once again we have observational evidence from which this 'assumption' is based. This observational evidence is based on a google of decay events and a geohistorical basis (e.g. consistent ages from different isotopic systems and the Oklo natural fission reactor).

quote:

---

While I'll grant number 3 as being on a stong footing, number 2 a priori assumes no flood so it can't be used as evidence and number 1 similarly assumes uniformitarianism.

---

JM: Number 3 is on STRONG footing indeed! #2 is simply a false statement on your part and #1 makes PREDICTIONS borne out by data it does not 'assume' anything!

quote:

---

So we're really down to radiodating. Apart from radiodecay there are no real reasons that these processes couldn't have happened much more quickly than you assume. And on the radiodecay front we have evidence of excess helium retention suggesting accelerated decay.

---

JM: This helium 'issue' is a complete red-herring. In fact, Humphreys latest fiasco is reminiscent of his misrepresentation of the magnetic field. He misrepresented modern work to bolster his own bias. This is inexcusable no matter what 'salvation issue' he may be supporting.

quote:

---

For us of course we even have the Bible telling us in plain language that the doubters will 'willing forget' that the flood occurred.

---

JM: I believe that document also discusses the issue of 'bearing false witness'. But you won't discuss that will you?CheersJoe Meert[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 10-23-2002]

quote:

---

Why do you insist on caricaturing me as if my entire being and thoughts can be summed up by one line in a post?

---

JM: Because that is what the evidence shows.

quote:

---

Is it possible that I was referring to global tectonics? That was the context. I know all about the Alaska event. On many of the occasions that you accuse me of not knowing something I actually know it.

---

JM: Then say so darn it all! You are a scientist. Specificity is required.

quote:

---

You have made good points about predicted bathymetry. I some how doubt it is as clear cut as you suggest, however I am way out of my field and my readings here.

---

JM: It is very simple in this case.

quote:

---

My statement that mainstream geologists assume slow sedimentation rates is a very accurate generalizaiton.

---

JM: It is completely false and you should stop claiming it.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ I'm talking about anyone taking a look at any arbitary local wall of strata. It will be assumed to have been formed slowly.

---

Cmon TB drop this one already. It's simply a false representation of geology.CheersJoe Meert