the ultimate question

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Percy we are already qualitatively happy that our model could explain all these things without any alternative physics (other than accelerated decay).

---

So, you are saying that you have no problem connecting these dots (including variable decay rates), but you have a reeeeeal problem with a paucity of transitionals below the family level?

quote:

---

Do you guys really think that you have explained the origin of the geological column in detail?

---

No, there are always some unexplained areas. Now, do you really think that you have explained variable radiolological decay rates? How about c-decay? Exactly what is your point here? Do we need to have every detail of the earth's history worked out before you will think about accepting it?

quote:

---

No you have not. Charles Lyell just said he had!

---

Could you please document this? I seriously doubt that Lyell felt that everything was worked out in the geological time scale ("in detail," as you seem to require).

quote:

---

There is very little simulation work done on that mainly becasue it's too hard.

---

True. The world is a lot more complex than the controlled environment that you create in your lab. But what is your point here? Do you think that because it is a difficult problem that we should attribute it all to supernatural processes?

quote:

---

Have you explained quantitatively and deterministically why there has been 7 or 8 sea level rises and falls over the last 500 million years that completely and repeatedly inundated many continents ? Not really, not quantitatively.

---

Why is this necessary? And what does it have to do with challenging evolution? Seems to me that if there were this many sea level rises, the bible should explain it? Not? How many floods do you want?You seem to put a lot of credence in quantitative analysis. Can you show us some of this quantitative work that has been done by flood geologists?Elsewhere you have repeatedly ask if we have heard of cyclothems. I fail to see the relevance to this discussion. Perhaps if you explained rather than asking cryptic questions, you might get a response. Would you please tell us how cyclothems are explained by the flood?

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 05-16-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
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 type of unconformity you refer to is called a 'disconformity' and it represents an interruption of deposition. The interruption may be long or short. It may define a facies change or not. In this case, it appears that it represents a period of transgression. I'm not sure what you are getting at on this issue. This is fairly common in the geological record.

quote:

---

The one I can be sure of is cyclothems. Do you know about them?

---

Yes.

quote:

---

Joe, your 'no evidnce for rapid geological reversals' is based on the evolutiuonary time scale.

---

Funny how these rapid reversals seem to have stopped when we began to be able to measure magnetic fields.

quote:

---

We are saying that that is wrong becasue of the flood and accelrated decay!

---

Good, then you have some independent evidence for the flood!

quote:

---

You can't look at our stuff and try and marry it into your system and then pronounce it incorrect.

---

However, we can compare it to other pieces of data with which it disagrees; the fossil record being one.

quote:

---

We think those reversals happened very rapidly during the flood probably due to accelerated decay.

---

Good. What caused the decay to increase? And why did it suddenly decide to occur during the flood? What is your independent evidence for rapid magnetic reversals?

quote:

---

It's internally consistent and there are quantitative models.

---

Yes, it is internally consistent. But how about being verifiable with independent evidence? How about it being externally consistent with other forms of evidence such as radiometric dating and physical properties of the mantle?

quote:

---

And your dismisal of the radiodecay - creationist calculations of the heat issue etc show that it is not a big problem. I'll post that some time for you.

---

No it isn't a problem. Baumgardner needs to have extremely high heat flows in order to make his model work. However, he neglects the nagging side effect of complete sterlization of the earth by those heat flows.

quote:

---

And how can we misinterpret the 100,000-fold (!) excess helium in granites and shortfall in the atmosphere?

---

You make a nice assertion. Please go over the details of this calculation for us. I usually find that these theories collapse when confronted with details.

quote:

---

Mainstreamers have agreed that the 'helium budget problem will not go away' in the atmosphere ...

---

Not clear what you mean here. '...will not go away in the atmosphere... ?'

quote:

---

... and I haven't read a critique yet of the recent granite helium (vast) excess.

---

Seems to me this has been done, but it's been a long time since I've heard this one. But nevertheless, get us some more details and we can discuss it. Maybe on a different thread.

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?

[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]

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.