the ultimate question

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?Joe, your 'no evidnce for rapid geological reversals' is based on the evolutiuonary time scale. We are saying that that is wrong becasue of the flood and accelrated decay! You can't look at our stuff and try and marry it into your system and then pronounce it incorrect. We think those reversals happened very rapidly during the flood probably due to accelerated decay. It's internally consistent and there are quantitative models.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.And how can we misinterpret the 100,000-fold (!) excess helium in granites and shortfall in the atmosphere? Mainstreamers have agreed that the 'helium budget problem will not go away' in the atmosphere and I haven't read a critique yet of the recent granite helium (vast) excess.------------------
You are go for TLI

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 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]

Percy, your explanatin may be possible I just don't think it is compelling - these interfaces are very flat - no gullies etc. There just isn't time for uplift given the lack of eroisonal surfaces IMO. I undestand your POV, I've read 3 monographs on origin of sedimentary rocks recently.The flood wasn't a stagnant pool, it was a fast flowing event - we know from paleocurrent data (for you guys the fast currents were constant in direction across Nth America for 200 million years!). Work done by creationists (some published in mainstream journals) does show neat layering. The exact order? - we'll see how that goes as time progresses.The great angular unconformity of GC? We think the flood was a vast tectonic event and linked to rapid continental drift so we have no problem with rapid uplift and the generatioon of unconfromities. Having said that, most flood geologists assign those GC layers as creation week rocks.------------------
You are go for TLI

Tranquility Base writes:

---

Percy, your explanatin may be possible I just don't think it is compelling...

---

That's nice, but it *is* the theory which explains the evidence. A recent world-wide flood, on the other hand, does not lay down sorted layers, does not lay down multiple layers, does do not lay down fine sediment, does not sort organisms by degree of difference from modern forms, does not sort material into layers by radiometric age, and does not lay down oppositely magnetized adjacent stripes on sea floors.

---

The great angular unconformity of GC? We think the flood was a vast tectonic event and linked to rapid continental drift so we have no problem with rapid uplift and the generation of unconfromities. Having said that, most flood geologists assign those GC layers as creation week rocks.

---

The GC layers are creation week rocks? Complete with fossils? God created sedimentary layers that take millions of years to deposit and that contain the fossils of organisms that never existed?I don't think this is the opinion of "most flood geologists" because the "God as trickster" viewpoint has been pretty consistently rejected by evangelical Christians.Rapid continental drift is contradicted by all the evidence, including the increasing radiometric age of the sea floor with distance from mid-oceanic ridges where sea floor forms, magnetic sea-floor striping, and the increasing depth of sediment on the sea floor with increasing distance from mid-oceanic ridges.The scenarios you're promoting are not suggested by the evidence, indeed are contradicted by it. You developed your scenarios in response not to evidence but to a particular interpretation of Genesis.--PercyPS - There's a tiny reply button in the row of links at the bottom of each message, including this one, ie, look down one inch from here. If you use that button your message will get annotated with a link to the message you're replying to. There are actually two such buttons, one that includes the message you're replying to in a quoted section.

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.Do you know about cyclothems?I was unaware that the tilted great angular unconformity had fossils (other than microsopic stuff that could have seeped in)? Are you sure about this? I was under the impression that AIG and ICR agreed that this was creation week stuff (?)------------------
You are go for TLI

Tranquility Base writes:

---

I don't believe you have corroborated your statement that the flood can't do these things.

---

You've got things backward. It's not up to me to present negative evidence but for you to present positive evidence. If your approach were valid I could claim there are invisible ethereal elephants living in your refrigerator and ask you to disprove it. Listen to Art Bell some night and try disproving some of that stuff.Current theory is consistent with the evidence. Your proposals, on the other hand, not only have no evidence, but in some cases even require physical laws to have been significantly different in the past. So far you have presented no evidence for the following:

• Changes in radiometric decay rates over time.
• Method of dispersing heat from rapid radiometric decay.
• Method of keeping rapid radiometric decay rate from killing off all life.
• Sorting of organisms by degree of difference from modern forms by floods.
• Neat layering by floods.
• Rapid reversals of the earth's magnetic field, on the order of once per hour instead of once every 1/2 million years or so.
• Incredibly rapid sea floor spreading with concurrent need to somehow not roast the oceans and the earth by introducing millions of cubic kilometers of magma in just a year.
• Incredibly rapid sea floor sedimentation.
• Most fossils were animals that existed at the time of the flood.
• Rapid motion of continents, kilometers/day.
• Method of dispersion of huge amounts of heat from proposed tectonic activity.

Moving on:

---

I was unaware that the tilted great angular unconformity had fossils (other than microsopic stuff that could have seeped in)? Are you sure about this? I was under the impression that AIG and ICR agreed that this was creation week stuff (?)

---

I didn't realize you were focused soley on the GC supergroup, which are the layers below the unconformity - you just referred to the unconformity and didn't say whether you were referring to the layers above or below.Regardless, the GC supergroup is *very* sparse in fossils - only algae is present. The same argument applies, however. Why would God create *sedimentary* layers complete with fossils?--PercyPS - Found that reply button, I see!

[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]

Percy we are already qualitatively happy that our model could explain all these things without any alternative physics (other than accelerated decay). I know you aren't but we are becasue we can see the whole thing. You guys often look at one of our points in isolation and ignore the rest IMO.Quantitatively things get better every year. There are more and more quantitative simulations and calcs that back up flood geology claims. I'll link some over the coming weeks. Eg? Paleocurrent simulations showing what sort of flood surges you would expect with a rotating globe of water with a single continent. Etc. We actually subscribe to Ocaams razor almost as much as you do - we just allow God to at least have someting to do with instigating the flood!Do you guys really think that you have explained the origin of the geological column in detail? No you have not. Charles Lyell just said he had! There is very little simulation work done on that mainly becasue it's too hard. 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.I of course do not believe God created strata with fossils. We would presume that the algae seeped into the creation week strata below the GAU.------------------
You are go for TLI

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.------------------
You are go for TLI

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]

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.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. I can provide links on many of the issues you brought up. You bring them up as if creationists haven't addressed them. 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 . . .?------------------
You are go for TLI

[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

^ 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.------------------
You are go for TLI

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

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. 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. 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.------------------
You are go for TLI