the ultimate question

and don't forget those wacky paleosols! http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/paleosol.htmCheersJoe meert

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]^ Percy, I hope you saw from my smiley that I was mainly trying to be funny. But I still don't think anyone addressed the issue of why for 'thousands/millions of years' there would be red sandstone and then suddenly chalk for 'thousands/millions of years'. I really think this has to be hydrodynamic sorting although I don't deny the oranismal origin of chalk. Let's not sidetrack onto the bigger picture of the fact that you don't think the flood could generate much of the geological column. Let's look at this one issue for a minute.[/QUOTE]JM: Are you positive there is no evidence for a sedimentary break between these units? In fact, there are some sharp transitions between sedimentary facies, but more often than not, we see erosional evidence between beds or other information indicating that the transition took some time. However, let's use the 'hydrodynamic sorting of sediments' argument. Why would we find a redbed underlying a limestone which is in turn overlain by a conglomerate?

quote:

---

The only sensible creaitonist explanation of the magnetic stripes is that of Snelling/Austin et al that propose a rapid version of continental drift and sea floor spreading.

---

JM: The problem with that is that there is no evidence for rapid reversals in the geologic record. It does not fit the land-ocean magnetic reversal pattern. You also end up with very shallow oceans ( http://gondwanaresearch.com/oceans.htm ).

quote:

---

I personally suspect they are correct about this and that it is the accerlated radioisopotic decay (caused by whatever means) that both (i) caused the flood/continental drift via radiogeneic heating and (ii) left radiodecay proportions that correlate with the stripes.

---

JM: The problem with rapid decay is shown http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/adam.htm

quote:

---

I am the first to acknowledge that this is 'after the horse has bolted' reasoning but science sometimes works that way. Sometimes we predict things and sometimes we explain the data after we have it. I presume you are aware of the recently demonstated vast excess of radiogenic helium in granites and corresoponding shortfall of atmospheric helium that supports the accelrated decay scenario?

---

JM: I am familiar with the claims of creationists that these are problems, but I am also familiar with the fact that this is an 'invention' by misinterpretation!CheersJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-15-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]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 one I can be sure of is cyclothems. Do you know about them?[/QUOTE]JM: Please read my post (as you have encouraged people to do with yours). I said in some cases, the transitions are smooth. In most, we see evidence of a hiatus.

quote:

---

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

---

JM: No, it's based on a lack of evidence for rapid reversals by creationists. Merely stating they are fast is not the same as providing evidence! Besides, you've not defined the flood strata. Reversals are known from the Precambrian to recent in conventional geology.

quote:

---

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

---

JM: I am saying then you have a heat problem. You also have not shown why rapid decay would influence dynamics in the outer core. Evidence please?

quote:

---

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

---

JM: I am just waiting for your evidence. I cannot 'marry' bald assertions into any model.

quote:

---

We think those reversals happened very rapidly during the flood probably due to accelerated decay. It's internally consistent and there are quantitative models.

---

JM: So you say, but where is the evidence (your bald assertion aside)? The rapid drift model makes certain unbiased predictions such as the expected depth profile of the ocean floor. These predictions are based on non-controversial physics. CheersJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-15-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]I don't believe you have corroborated your statement that the flood can't do these things. Creationist, and some mainstream published work, supports the idea that rapid flow can generate neat layering. And there is creationist work on the ordering issue - I have it in my hand - by Woodmorappe. Have you heard/read this stuff? I will show you the sources over the next few days but I suspect you are aware of them (have you seen 'the video' on sedimentation or 'the video' on Mt St Helens?). In fact the paelocurrent data shows that the vast beds of Nth America were mostly laid in the rapid flow regime.[/QUOTE]JM: I've read Woodmorrappe's evolutionary old earth articles under his real name Peczkis. Woody writes on both sides of the fence using two different names. Why should we trust anything he writes. Anyway, Woody's arguments have some problems ( http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/paleosol.htm )I'll ask again. What rocks do you consider pre, post and syn flood using the standard column?CheersJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-15-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I'm not a geologist Joe (I'm a physicist, working in molecular biology who has read the mainstream geological literature on sedimentaiton/stratigraphy/tectonics!).

​

But the typical flood geologist says roughly Cambrian to Cretaceous don't they (?) although I'm aware that this is currently under fierce debate. Some want to include some of the Cenezoic I think. Some say we can't even use the mainstream definitions. I admit I'm out of my league here. It's certainly an important point for us and something I've read a little on but haven't absorbed it fully.

​

---

JM: You're out of your league, yet you are certain that creationists have it right? I guess I don't follow such logic. The Cambrian has paleosols and there are paleosols right on through the Cretaceous. There are global glaciations (totally unambiguous) during the Precambrian, the Ordovician and the Permo-Triassic. There are thick aeolian deposits in that interval. So how do we get paleosols, glaciations, and aeolian deposits in a global tempest? Furthermore, how do we get Precambrian reversals? Tertiary reversals. The Cretaceous and Permo-Carboniferous are known for their long non-reversals (Kiaman and Cretaceous Long Normal). I thought the flood, along with some unexplained magically cool fast radioactive decay caused these reversals? I still have not heard the explanation for how decay triggered reversals.CheersJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-15-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]Firstly I personally know two PhDed flood geologists, I myself am a PhDed physicist and I've read a lot of mainsteam and flood geology. I don't actaully like this compartmentalization of science and I currently do theoretical molecular biology research! That aside I am obviously swayed by the writings of the AIG and ICR creationists. But I have done a lot of mainstream geological reading too.[/QUOTE]JM: Are you arguing from authority here?

quote:

---

On your points, it's amazing how many times such 'definite' geological statements can be torn down. I've seen retractions made on formations that were aeolian and now aren't or were reefs and now aren't. So, yes I will take some of your 'definites' with a few grains of salt I'm afraid.

---

JM: Yet, you are confident your 'boys' have it right? I guess that's up to you. However, for the sake of argument let's say that 90% of the interpretations are wrong. That leaves 10% correct and still a problem.

quote:

---

I can provide links on many of the issues you brought up.

---

JM: As long as they are in the scientific literature, I will be happy to look at them. If they are self-published books or journals, then the data (though possibly correct) are suspect.

quote:

---

You bring them up as if creationists haven't addressed them.

---

JM: Because they have not!

quote:

---

I'm happy to talk about them over the coming weeks. I truly am here to learn and share how I'm thinking too.

​

Teach me about your 'reversals'. Are you talking about folding (strata reversals), pole reversals . . .?

---

JM: You brought up the subject. In general geologists do not call folding 'strata reversals' so I am talking about magnetic reversals. If the flood is Cambrian through Cretaceous then you have bracketed the two longest NON-REVERSING intervals known in earth history! What about all the Precambrian and Tertiary reversals? What about the paleosols found in the sequence? What about the glacial deposits? If you don't believe them, then what evidence can you supply (other than your own, admittedly untrained incredulity) to counter the evidence? I am all for discovery, but so far (in geology) all you've provided are bald assertions sans data. Surely a PhDed (as you say) physicist knows the importance of publishing ones data?CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ On that sort of detail either I or you will have to carefully read the Snelling et al stuff on rapid continental drift. I'll see if I can fii it in. I know they have partially addressed the issue. But, yes, some of it is our expectation of how it will turn out. And I wasn't arguing from authority other than to say that I'm commenting as a sceintist who has looked considerably into the issue - not someone sprouting random thoughts.

​

---

JM: Yes, but clearly outside your field. Your naivete shines through as clearly as mine would arguing about the physics of quantum gravity. Though I've read a few books on the subject and I am fascinated by it, I would look like a fool trying to argue the details of the subject. Snelling is not a geophysicist, nor is he a geochronologist and his arguments (like those of Austin-Nevins) also look very naive to anyone knowledgeable in the field. Baumgardner is your best source here. However, Baumgardner is known to author old-earth articles that run counter to his ye-stance. As a scientist you should find it odd that someone would agree to co-author a paper whose conclusions were so diametrically opposed to those stated in the paper. Yet, Baumgardner does this often. At the same time, Baumgardner's model missed something important. The first thing he missed is a discussion of the effects of his model on life (including those in the no-evidence ark). Superheated steam is generally not good for living organisms. Secondly, Baumgardner was so enamored with his runaway subduction that he forgot all about the new oceanic crust and how it should form and cool through time. These are not minor mistakes, but major blunders caused by forcing an extra-biblical intepretation on science.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]That may be all true Joe, but models start rough and then home in. We'll see whether it really is ruled out. At the end of the day I am scientifically satisfied that there is a potential solution and that I understand most of the major points of the differences in the two viewpoints.[/QUOTE]

​

JM: Yet, you admit this is not your arena of expertise. So be it. You are more convinced by the religious arguments than the scientific ones. How do I know this? Because none of the scientific arguments are published!

​

quote:

---

I certainly can't argue detailed geophysics with you but I can certainly ask you what your opinion of this or that creationist theory is. And I am still satisfied that accelerated decay could cause the flood in some way and be consistent with the data.

---

​

JM: Nor could I strongly argue your expertise. However, accelerated decay as a mechanism for a global flood is nonsensical mumbo-jumbo. Perhaps your religious fervor has biased your scientific mind?

​

[QUOTE] It's not much differenet tha nDarwin - he didn't even know about genes and yet he somehow hoped evoltuon could happen somehow. Empirically he 'knew' it must. Well, 'emperically' I think the geological column looks like a flood deposit and so do my flood geolgoist friends. I particularly like cyclothems but I'll inundate you with that another day.
[/b]

---

JM: You do not have to inundate me with cylcothems! They are actually irrelevant to the discussion. Empirically, creationists dismissed the flood 150+ years ago and their evidence damning the Noachian flood is still valid. I've yet to see you answer my questions other than to say (in essence) "The bible can be interpreted to say it and that settles it for me"---until I need to reinterpret it!CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ I thought I said that I also found the ICR and AIG creationists arguements compelling.

​

---

Unpublished nonsense. Can you supply some scientifically published research to support your case?CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
They are talking about publishing the helium diffusion work. But they're far to pragmatic to even both sending a creationist rapid continental drift/Noah flood paper to a mainstream journal! Of course you think it's becasue of the (lack of) science - I think there's another reason. As for the tech AIG and ICR journals most of the papers are of high quality and are genuinely interesting IMO. They frequently debunk old creationist ideas too (like moon dust etc).

​

---

JM: They are vanity journals meant to circumvent the critical eyes of real science. Real science subjects itself to all criticisms. Austin is well aware that good science, even if biblical, can be published with strong supporting data. Surely a 'Phded' physicist know this as well.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Anyway, I know these guys have also been to Yellowstone and they find your 27 forests consistent with a single (much larger) Mt St Helens type event. I'll post details later but as a scientist I am currently satisfied that this is a good answer to your point. Paleosoils? Why shouldn't soils be deposited as mud etc? They are at My St Helens too.

---

JM: Published where?

quote:

---

I wont try and say that they have proved this beyond doubt

---

JM: In fact, they've nothing more than unpublished conjecture at this point. I don't think you've grasped the difference between the St. Helen's trees and the Yellowstone forests. The St. Helen's logs simply don't fit the mold of the Yellowstone, sorry.

quote:

---

- but they have definitely made a good case and are still working on these things.

---

JM: No, they've published nothing to support your assertion in the scientific journals.

quote:

---

Some of you can poke fun at it but it doesn't take away from their hard work and good science IMO. As some of you know Austin's related floating mat hypothesis of coal formation is treated quite seriously

---

JM: By who? I can't think of a single publication in the scientific literature relating coal formation to floating vegetation mats after the Noachian flood. Perhaps you can point me to the published works?

quote:

---

and I've got multiple quotes of mainstream geolgoists who agree that coal formation and 100s of feet of cyclothems were rapid.

---

JM: More quote mining? Is this the sole basis for 'creation science'? It seems to be. Surely a 'PhDed physicist' working in the mainstream know the value of published works. Where did you get your Ph.D.?CheersJoe Meert

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).CheersJoe Meert

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)!CheersJoe Meert

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=3846So, 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.aspBy 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]

[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.CheersJoe Meert