|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: glaciers and the flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5709 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
I just love this:
quote: JM: To which I say (again).. What flood? There is no evidence for a flood. This whole article states (matter-of-factly) that a global flood occurred and everything can be explained because of that. The problem is that no one is willing to be pinned down on the timing of the flood and the evidence for the flood. If it occurred in the Precambrian (ala Setterfield and a few others), then the Phanerozoic geologic record (especially the Pleistocene) would be fairly far removed from the ravages of the flood (even using a 10000 year interval). Until Oard can tell us when the flood happened and why we find paleosols forming during the flood, his meteorological conjectures are quite useless. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5709 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
Ahh Brad, We can always depend on you for some delicious word salad.
Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5709 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Hey buddy! How's it going at USF? I'm still pissed they did not allow you in here, but I can always hope to grab you when you come to grad school. Are you liking it? Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5709 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Now check out the definition! Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5709 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: C'mon Roy that's a cop-out and you know it. If 'most' of the geologic record was deposited as a result of the flood, then some of it was not. That means that it should be reasonable to ask (using uniformitarian layers for terminology purposes only) what layer marks the onset, which layers preceded the flood, which layers formed during the peak stages of the flood and which layers formed after. I'm not asking you to accept the dating of the layers, I'm asking you to use the names as a common reference. Wanna try again? Heck, I'd settle for you telling me what 'most' means in your terminology? Is what uniformitarians refer to as the Paleozoic flood or not flood? How about the Mesozoic (flood or no flood?). The Cenozoic (flood or no flood)? Or do you assert that superposition of strata is totally meaningless even compressed to a 6000 year (or 1 year) time interval? Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5709 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: I know, I find that most intriguing. I know it does not bother you (even though it should), but shouldn't a global cataclysm of such importance be easy to recognize in the geologic strata? Yet it seems there are only a handful of creationists who even attempt to be pinned down on specifics (I know why!).
quote: JM: Yes, so how is it that layers from Cambrian through Tertiary contain hundreds (if not thousands) of paleosols? These ancient soil horizons require time to form. They contain rootlets and burrows indicating a thriving (and non submersed) community. You can find them all over the globe and all through the geologic column. They are utterly unexplainable in terms of a global flood.
How do you explain the presence of glacial deposits in the Ordovician for example in your flood model?
What flood produces massive aeolian deposits?
What were termites doing establishing colonies and building giant nests in the midst of this global tempest.
The reason creationists don't have a uniform model? If they did, they'd be hard pressed to explain the observations. They need to be nebulous in order to convince their brethren that the flood is possible when the geologic record is unequivocal in its rejection of a global flood. How do they explain the 10's of thousands of meters of Precambrian sedimentary rock?
quote: So how were the above mentioned rocks 'superposed' in the flood?
quote: JM: No they don't. They simply won't be pinned down on the specifics.
quote: JM: Nonsense. Creationists have no good explanation for paleosols throughout the geologic record. They cannot explain the existence of termite mounds in the midst of a global tempest. You can cover your eyes, but you cannot hide.
quote: JM: But it's obviously not clear to them what represents the flood deposits. I know why. Agassiz understood why. The reason is quite simple, there was no global flood.
quote: JM: The 'system' was NEVER based on the assumption that no global flood occurred. That's inventing history.
quote: JM: Baloney, they've had hundreds of years to demonstrate the flood.
quote: JM: Baloney, the classification system has nothing to do with philosophical beliefs. Christians, Muslim, agnostic and atheist scientists were all responsible for studying ancient depositional environments. It's only ye-creationists who refuse to see what the rocks are telling them.
quote: JM: More Christians are not flood cataclysmists, meaning that they also believe Jesus is their savior. The fact that a few have chosen to believe an ancient flood myth has nothing to do with their salvation. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5709 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Yes, they do and I explained quite clearly why I resized and relabled the photograph:
quote: By the way, the caption reads regolith and paleosol DEVELOPED ON, not DEVELOPMENT. I'll give a brief account here of the history of this page here. When I was at Indiana State, I conducted a paleomagnetic research project on the St. Francois Mtns volcanics/intrusives (Meert and Stuckey, Tectonics 2002 v 21:2, DOI 10.1029/2000TC001265). On one of my sampling trips I was accompanied by Steve Hasiotis (http://www.findarticles.com/...i_m1511/is_n2_v19/ai_20159538). Steve is a world-renowned expert on trace fossils and paleosols. Steve pointed out this paleosol to me and later thinking about the notion, I realized that paleosols present a real problem for the ye-viewpoint. If you look at the original paleosol site Paleosols you'll see that the discussion of paleosols was part of a larger essay. When TAs Walker picked up on this and wrote a 'journal' article on one deformed photograph I was amazed. Naturally, I realized that the discussion needed some expansion and clarification because most of Walker's arguments were incorrect. You can see my detailed response to his article Geology at 200 d . There are many types of paleosols and the assertion that every paleosol must show every horizon or every feature is nonsensical (for example one would not expect to find root traces in Precambrian paleosols). The development of specific soil horizons depends on many factors.So, yes I did relabel and resize the photograph in order to point out the details and included another photo that I found in a publication by Kisvarsanyi: As far as I know, there is nothing wrong with providing further clarification in science. If there is some rule that I've violated, then I'd like to hear about it. Lastly, I spent a week last fall with Greg Retallack and had the opportunity to discuss paleosols with him (at the outcrop). Frankly, I did not even realize the extent to which paleosols appear in the sedimentary record. On our trip out to Toroweap, he pointed out no less than 50 paleosol horizons. Here is a photo of Greg Retallack (right) and Walter Alvarez (left) examining a paleosol at the rim of the Grand Canyon at Toroweap (line from Greg's right foot to his left knee defines the base of the paleosol and the top of the paleosol is defined by the rock at about Greg's chest height.
Greg is without question, one of the world's leading authority on the subject of paleosols. I suggest you read his book "Soils of the Past". You can purchase the book at Amazonhttp://ibelgique.ifrance.com/HL-Ebooks/outdoor/geology.htm or you may want to read the book 'Soils and geomorphology' (also available at the above mentioned website) by Peter W. Birkeland. At any rate, Tas' diatribe on my paleosol suggests that one ye-creationist recognized a problem (even if he was able to wish it away). I'll get to the rest of your comments when I get a chance. However, for the sake of argument, let's assume that Hasiotis and I are wrong and that this is not a paleosol, how does that help ye-creationists? There are still thousands of paleosols in the geologic record that meet the criteria you demand. How did those paleosols develop during the flood? Cheers Joe Meert This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 02-25-2005 14:24 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5709 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: I mistyped. The correct term would be root traces. The roots themselves are gone.
quote: JM: I bet they are! This is a big problem for them.
quote: JM: Really, I just looked up his name in Georef and came up blank. Yes, they really are tillites.
quote: JM: Ahh yes, this old canard. You might enjoy this: Same Evidence Why is it that petroleum and mining companies won't pay for your presuppositions, Mrs. Morris? Cheers Joe Meert This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 02-25-2005 12:57 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5709 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Yes, and I explained why it is a brief description. The purpose of the webpage was not specifically meant to discuss this particular example, but the problem that paleosols present in general to the young earth column. I also think you need to get more current on the definition of paleosol.
quote: JM: Actually, it was Steve Hasiotis who identified it as a paleosol. If you would like to contact steve, I can give you his e-mail. What I find intriguing as well is that you seem satisfied to reject it as a paleosol simply because Tas Walker (who has never even been to the outcrop) thinks it is not a paleosol.
quote: JM: Umm, yes I am going to get on the next plane to Missouri so that I can sample the paleosol and demonstrate to royboys satisfaction that it is a paleosol. The funny thing is, I'm willing to bet that even with all that effort, you will still dismiss it with a handwave. So, in order to expedite the conversation I am willing to discard this one paleosol as an example. That leaves some tens of thousand other paleosols that await your handwave.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5709 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: The irony meter just went red. Ok, we should accept this proclamation because....
quote: JM: You visited the outcrop when? Are you aware of the current discussion regarding the definition of paleosols within the scientific community?
quote: JM: No, I explained why it was on the website and I explained that an expert in paleosols examined the outcrop. I also explained that you may completely disregard this example and you are still left with thousands of others to dismiss.
quote: JM: As does your refutation of it. Two of us (hasiotis and myself) have been to the outcrop, examined the outcrop and concluded that it is a paleosol. We might be wrong, but at this point I tend to rely more on our observations than on those who have never been to the site or ever published on paleosols. More on your alleged paradigm later. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5709 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
the rest of my reply:
I’ve given you a good example of why the ‘framework’ argument is a red-herring. You’re basically claiming that all ‘frameworks’ offer the same explanatory power. Thus if someone has the ‘pixie’ framework that establishes that all geologic observations were made by evil pixies, it should be considered equally with ye-creationism. After all, both the pixieists, the naturalists and the ye-creationists have access to the same observations. They just interpret them differently. Perhaps the true acid test of ye-creationism is how it is valued by those with no stake in how well the paradigm works. Oil companies don’t ask to see the latest creation model to help them find oil, yet they do consult people like Hasiotis to examine paleoenvironments. They consult paleomagnetists to help them establish continental configurations and locate potential places for oil exploration. When the rubber meets the road and $$ is on the line, not a single oil company wants to hear the ye-creation world view because it offers no informational value. I don’t doubt for a second that creationists will need to reinterpret paleosols to fit their worldview just as they must reinterpret tillites. The real issue is the value of the paradigm. Ye-creationists have to re-interpret the fossil record, transitional fossils. They need to reinterpret aeolian deposits, desert varnish, the presence of tracks in sandstone. They need to reinterpret the standard biological classification system. They have to re-interpret every single radiometric date, the physics of radiometric dating. They have to reinterpret astronomical observations, the 2nd law of thermodynamics etc. etc. The real question they never seem to want to ask is how all these sciences could be so wrong and yet function so well. Instead of saying, you know, we (ye-creationists) have to come up with an excuse for nearly every scientific discovery that is made...could it be that we are wrong? Instead, they fall back and say "No, our interpretation of the bible is correct and therefore we are right to force the round pegs of science into our square view of theology. Furthermore, most of ye-creation science is reactionary. Modern science makes an observation and ye-creationists re-interpret that observation. Yet ye-creationists make very few novel observations of their own and thus the scientific value of ye-creationism can rightly be challenged. Cheers Joe Meert This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 02-26-2005 15:09 AM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024