Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9174 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,602 Year: 4,859/9,624 Month: 207/427 Week: 17/103 Day: 6/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood II
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 816 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 167 of 234 (35036)
03-23-2003 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Bill Birkeland
03-23-2003 5:50 PM


Re: Part 2 of 2 Parts
Mr Birkeland, I don't usually wear a hat, but I just put one on only to be able to take it off to you. That was excellent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Bill Birkeland, posted 03-23-2003 5:50 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Admin, posted 03-24-2003 7:48 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13081
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 168 of 234 (35058)
03-24-2003 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Coragyps
03-23-2003 8:47 PM


Re: Part 2 of 2 Parts
I've been considering having a "Post of the Month" award, but I wanted to make voting automatic via clicking on a link, rather than sending email or posting a message to a thread. You would be able to vote for as many posts as you like, but you would never be able to vote for the same post more than once, and you couldn't vote for your own posts.
But that's in the future - I don't have any coding time available right now. In the meantime, for those who would like to participate in a less automated "Post of the Month" I'll start up a thread each month in Suggestions. I'll add the "March Post of the Month" thread in a couple minutes.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Coragyps, posted 03-23-2003 8:47 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6330 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 169 of 234 (36038)
04-01-2003 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Bill Birkeland
03-23-2003 5:50 PM


Dear Bill Birkeland;
I found your last postings very intriguing and very persuasive. But I find the evidence and deductions supporting impact creation of the Carolina Bays also very persuasive. Have you read Savage's book? If you haven't, perhaps you aren't aware of just how strong the case is for impact creation. Here is a link to a web site that has the complete book "The Mysterious Carolina Bays", by Henry Savage Jr on line. Index of /bobk/mcb
I would suggest you read it over and show me the holes, for I find that Savage presents a conclusive case that the Bays are comet impact craters. He examines all the other possibilities including the ones you put forward, and shows why they will not work. Only comet impacts can account for all of the features of the Bays. Now to speed things up, perhaps you can e-mail me the papers you think I should read and I will be happy to do so, otherwise I hope to be able to pick them up on Saturday at the library, I am only posting before reading them to keep the thread open. Perhaps I have reached the conclusions that I have because I have only seen one side of the argument, I would like to see both sides so I can make a more informed decision.
I don't agree with the "Cafeteria Catastrophism" approach, it is of course an exercise in self delusion. But what is it that you have against the catastrophists? Do you reject all catastrophism such as a comet killing off the dinosaurs, or is yours more of a limited rejection of just YEC influenced catastrophism?
From reading Savage's book it appears that only impacting comet fragments can account for all of the features, siliclastic karst or eolian processes can only account for some of the features. ( haven't read the paper you cited on this, but hope to do so soon.) As many have pointed out, new bays are not currently being formed, which is a major problem for terrestrial theories since these processes are on going. Contrary to what you posted, it is childishly easy to detect the formation of new Carolina bays, it is as easy as spending a few moments in a woods and noticing how trees come in different sizes and deducing the pattern of growth. Similarly with the Bays, growing Bays would be obvious by their increasing depth shown in the progression in the types of bottom sediments changing from shallow to deep lake types. Even if siliclastic karst origin theory was correct, and it maybe, it appears to be dependant on climate and is almost inactive under present climate conditions. The Karst theory does seem to be the only serious contender to the impact theory, but Savage claims to have shown why it will not work in his book.
On the statements that the impact theory has been abandoned, appears to be premature at the very least or this fact is only known to some geologists. Here is a link to a web page dated 2001 referring to an impact origin for the Carolina Bays.
http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v33n3/dps2001/198.htm
Here is a lecture outline for a college course dated November 14, 2002 that refers to a possible comet impact origin for the Carolina Bays.
http://web.lander.edu/rsfox/415origin-4Lec.html
In 2001 the World Wild Life site stated;
"Carolina Bays are ovate shaped shallow depressions and occur abundantly across a broad band of the coastal plain from southern North Carolina to the South Carolina-Georgia border (Richardson and Gibbons 1993). They represent a type of bog or bog-lake complex unique to the southeastern coastal plain, and are thought to have been formed by a meteor or comet impact."
Biomes | Conserving Biomes | WWF
It appears to me that after a brief internet search, that the impact theory is alive and well, being referred to even in current college lecture outline notes. Now on the impact theory, no one is saying that the impacts happened yesterday, everyone accepts the fact that the Bays are and have been under going modification by lacustrine and eolian processes which has effected their original alinement. These processes may have 'detuned' the bays so that they are no longer pointed to a common source, as they once may have. The theory being here that there may not have been enough time for the bay alinement to become completely random or purely local wind alined, so that much of the original 'signal' is still present. These processes are not mysterious or questioned, what is questioned is the process that originally formed the depressions. In terms of just the impact theory itself, the dating or time of the event doesn't matter. Now I would like to see it at LGM or later, but that is just my theory and is not part of the general impact theory. I am very interested in the pollen results and would like to read the papers on this, but until I do, I will reserve commenting on this until I have had a chance to review the information on this in better detail.
Your objections to all the comet fragments just happening to explode just above ground level overlooks the explanations given in the impact theory. Highly volatile comet fragments impacting the ground at a low angle are riding behind a 'pressure wave cone' that triggers an explosion in the volatile comet and creates the bay shaped hollow. Or so they tell me, personally I suspect that exploding on ground contact would create pretty much the same effect. The volatility of comets combined with a low impact angle and possibly a lower impact speed in this case, would create impact features completely different than what is seen in meteorite impact craters. I even found a reference on the web to "Gault's idea that the Bays could be formed by ejecta from a glacial impact."
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/shoelett.html which happens to be the mechanism I put forth in my book. Ice ejected from impacts on the ice sheet that could have hit the Carolinas would be following flatter suborbital trajectories and would have a much slower impact speed than impacting comet fragments and eliminates the need for an air burst.
quote:
I would challenge Mr. wmscott to produce side-scan sonar images and sub-bottom profiler data that clearly show underwater Carolina Bays lying on the continental shelf to prove that they actually exist
You will have to pardon me, but I seem to have misplaced both my side-scan sonar and my bottom profiler, I will have to ask the wife if she has seen them. Seriously after doing some checking, I think I found the problem and will have to concede that the Bays probably do not extend below present sea level. What I found is that the references cited for these supposed under water Carolina Bays are actually referring to under sea 'pock marks' which are crater like holes created in the sediments by the release of methane gas. The resulting crater has a much deeper profile than a Carolina Bay and they seem to fail to reach the large sizes seen in some of the larger Bays. These pock marks are common and exist in many areas and some probably do exist on the continental shelf off the Carolinas, but they are an unrelated phenomena. I will have to keep my eyes open for references to more Bay like craters off shore, but it appears to me that there probably are none. So on this point you win.
After I read the papers you cited I will post again and let you know if looks like I will have to do a complete retraction or not.
Sincerely Wm Scott Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Bill Birkeland, posted 03-23-2003 5:50 PM Bill Birkeland has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Bill Birkeland, posted 04-07-2003 1:49 PM wmscott has replied

  
Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2613 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 170 of 234 (36420)
04-07-2003 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by wmscott
04-01-2003 8:29 PM


On 04-01-2003 08:29 PM, wmscott wrote:
Member ;
>I found your last postings very intriguing and very
>persuasive. But I find the evidence and deductions
>supporting impact reation of the Carolina Bays also
>very persuasive. Have you read Savage's book?
Yes, I have read Savage's book. Having read it, I find
it quite revealing that the antiquated, over 20 year
old science presented in it can be considered the
"best" that supporters of an impact origins for the
Carolina Bays can present.
>If you haven't, perhaps you aren't aware of just how
>strong the case is for impact creation. Here is a
>link to a web site that has the complete book "The
>Mysterious Carolina Bays", by Henry Savage Jr on line.
>Index of /bobk/mcb I would suggest
>you read it over and show me the holes, for I find
>that Savage presents a conclusive case that the Bays
>are comet impact craters.
One main problem, as I noted below, is that the physical
mechanisms / model, which Savage presents for the
formation, has been over the last 20 years, found to
be completely unworkable. Over the twenty years, since
Savage published his book, field studies and computer
simulations / modeling has shown that meteorites don't
impact and behave as Savage hypothesized in his book.
>He examines all the other possibilities
>including the ones you put forward, and shows why they
>will not work. Only comet impacts can account for all of
>the features of the Bays
You greatly overstate the case made by Savage. Given
that his book was published in 1982, how can this book
argue against hypotheses and explain data published in
journal articles that were published in 1989, 2001, etc.
some 19 to 20 years **after**. Savage's book on the
Carolina Bays was published?? This book only addresses
arguments and information made up to 1982. It has
nothing to say about any the articles and abstracts
published after 1982. Even with the data up 1982, Savage
provides a less than iron clad, even convincing case in
his book on the Carolina Bays. Also, his ideas about
impact mechanics are out of date by 20 years and have
been found to woefully wrong-headed since its
publication.
...text deleted...
>I don't agree with the "Cafeteria Catastrophism"
>approach, it is of course an exercise in self delusion.
>But what is it that you have against the catastrophists?
>Do you reject all catastrophism such as a comet killing
>off the dinosaurs, or is yours more of a limited
>rejection of just YEC influenced catastrophism?
I have nothing against catastrophism when there is solid
data to support it. I agree that a comet very likely
killed off the dinosaurs. I agree that major catastrophes,
e.g. massive caldera eruptions, extraterrestrial impacts,
have occurred and influenced Earth's prehistory. What I
disagree with supporters of catastrophists like Immanuel
Velikovsky, whose wild and wonderful theories about global
catastrophes, can be now shown to be contradicted by an
overwhelming amount of evidence and are now known to
violate very basic laws of phyiscs. If a person can
provide, as in case of the K-T and various other impacts,
solid evidence of the catastrophe and show that it
follows the laws of physics, I have no problem in
accepting them.
Like many geologists and astronomers, I disagree with
people who believe that every round or oval lake
absolutely positively must be an impact crater simply
beacuse of their shape and without providing very
reasons for their identifiaction.
>From reading Savage's book it appears that only
>impacting comet fragments can account for all of the
>features, siliclastic karst or eolian processes can
>only account or some of the features.
The impact mechanisms by which Savage explains the
formation of the Carolina Bays have largely, if not
entirely discredited in the last twenty years. If
the processes by which Savage explains the formation
of the craters are now known to be total nonsense,
then his impact can't be said to explain any of the
Carolina Bays at this time.
>( haven't read the paper you cited on this, but hope
>to do so soon.) As many have pointed out, new bays are
>not currently being formed, which is a major problem
>for terrestrial theories since these processes are on
>going.
This claim indulges in a hyperuniformitarianism, which
simply is not true. Just because we don't see a process
operating in the present fails completely to mean that
that this process hadn't operated sometime in the past.
Mr. wmscott doesn't understand that there has drastic
changes in climate between glacial and interglacial
cycles. During this time, different processes will be
active during a glacial - interglacial cycles. For
example, a person can find glacial moraines over all
of the Midwestern Untied States. Just because I can't
find ice sheets forming these moraines anywhere in the
Midwest today doesn't mean that there is a major problem
in advocating that they were created by terrestrial
processes associated with continental ice sheets. Using
Mr. wmscott's logic, I can argue that these glacial
moraines were created by some extraterrestrial event
because I can't find moraines being created currently
in eastern United States by continental ice sheets.
If the Carolina Bays are relict landforms, which
formed at somemtime in the past when climate, ground
water, and sea level were different than they are
now, than not being able to find any forming today
proves nothing. There are relict beach ridges on
the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Because these beach ridges
are now high and dry and not forming doesn't mean
they weren't created by active shoreline at some time
in the past.
>Contrary to what you posted, it is childishly easy
>to detect the formation of new Carolina bays, it is
>as easy as spending a few moments in a woods and
>noticing how trees come in different sizes and
>deducing the pattern of growth.
Contrary to what Mr. wmscott naively claims, it is
not "childishly easy" to detect the formation of
new Caroline Bays. It is absolutely impossible to use
trees to determine whether new Carolina Bays are
Forming. First, given the very slow process by which
a Carolina Bay form, the time over which it would
become apparent that a Carolina Bay is forming would
far exceed the life span of most trees, as it far
exceeds the period of time for which detailed aerial
and topographic data has been collected. Second, the
trees in a Carolina Bay and an area also is responding
to short term environmental changes in climate and
ground water, which would mask any influence of any
very gradual Carolina Bay formation that might be
taking place. Finally, the forests of the Atlantic
Coastal Plain have been greatly disturbed by agriculture,
urban development, ground water withdrawl, tree farming,
and many other anthropogenic processes. It would be very
difficult to find an area undisturbed to the point that
finding an area where a person can find the effects
of Carolina Bay formation extremely difficult. I don't
understand how it would be possible to use trees to
determine whether not Carolina Bays are indeed forming.
Looking at the sizes and variations of trees on the
Atlantic Coastal Plain would prove about whether
Carolina Bays are now forming or not.
>Similarly with the Bays, growing Bays would be
>obvious by their increasing depth shown in the
>progression in the types of bottom sediments
>changing from shallow to deep lake types.
Unfortunately, the level of Carolina Bays constantly
change in response to changes in climate (even weather),
groundwater, and other factors. The effects of the
subsidence of a Carolina Bay, presuming it is even
an active landform, not a relict landform being
modified by other processes, will be completely
masked by such changes.
Presuming that a Carolina Bay is actively subsiding,
the progressive deepening and change in bottom sediments
still may not occur. The subsidence of such a feature
will be so slow that the rate, at which it is filled
by organic sediment and wind blow material can very
easily match or exceed the rate at which it subsides.
In such as case, a Carolina Bay can actively subside
and still not show a progressive deepening. There are
so many factors that would determine the depth of a
Carolina Bay that the present or absence of a
progressively deepening sequence of bottom sediments
proves nothing about their origin or activity.
>Even if siliclastic karst origin theory was correct,
>and it maybe, it appears to be dependant on climate
>and is almost inactive under present climate conditions.
>The Karst theory does seem to be the only serious
>contender to the impact theory, but Savage claims to
>have shown why it will not work in his book.
How does Savage, in a book published in 1982,
demonstrate that theory published in 1989 doesn't
work? How can Savage address new data and ideas
discussed in papers published in 1989 to 2002??
this doesn'e make any sense.
>On the statements that the impact theory has been
>abandoned, appears to be premature at the very least
>or this fact is only known to some geologists. Here
>is a link to a web page dated 2001 referring to an
>impact origin for the Carolina Bays.
>http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v33n3/dps2001/198.htm
People still rehash old ideas. What is interesting is
that this abstract fails to explain why the magnetic
anomalies occur **outside** of the features. If these
were real impacts, the magnetic anomalies should occur
inside the features. Meteorites and comets do not act
like bullets. A single abstract, which are not peer-
reviewed, does not mean an idea is widely accepted
except by the person who gave the abstract. Can Mr.
wmscott find a recent peer-reviewed journal article
that regards the impact hypothesis as being credible?
>Here is a lecture outline for a college course dated
>November 14, 2002 that refers to a possible comet
>impact origin for the Carolina Bays.
>http://web.lander.edu/rsfox/415origin-4Lec.html
You misrepresent what the lecture states. This lecture,
which by a non-geologist, simply states that the
Carolina Bays are of "unknown origin". The impact
hypothesis is **not** endorsed in the lecture but
simply listed as one of "18 mechanisms have been
proposed, none is wholly satisfactory". It clearly
states that the "comet basins" and meteor basins"
explanations are not considered a satisfactory
explanation by the person who prepared the lecture
notes.
The lecture notes are for " Limnology Lecture Outlines
Environmental Science 415, Biology 415, Richard Fox,
Department of Biology, Lander University, Lake
Origins 4"
>In 2001 the World Wild Life site stated; "Carolina
>Bays are ovate shaped shallow depressions and occur
>abundantly across a broad band of the coastal plain from
>southern North Carolina to the South Carolina-Georgia
>border (Richardson and Gibbons 1993). They represent a
>type of bog or bog-lake complex unique to the
>southeastern coastal plain, and are thought to have
>been formed by a meteor or comet impact."
>Biomes | Conserving Biomes | WWF
These are botantists, not geologists who produced this
web page. I suspect that they are just repeating what
they found in some source without bothering to critically
evaluated where it is a currently viable hypothesis.
This proves nothing about how Quaternary geologists,
Planetary geologists, and geomorphologists regard the
impact theory.
>It appears to me that after a brief internet search,
>that the impact theory is alive and well, being
>referred to even in current college lecture outline
>notes.
Mr. wmscott has a very strange definition of "alive and
well". By his definition of "alive and well", I could
claim that Saddam Hussein is "alive and well" and in
charge of all of Iraq. Today, Saddam is likely is
in better condition than the impact hypothesis. For
example, if Mr. wmscott look closely at the lecture
notes that he cited above, he will find that the person,
who prepared it, regards the impact hypothesis as being
not entirely satisfactory. This is not a "ringing"
endorsement of the "impact theory".
A true indication of how geologists and the scientific
community in general feel about the impact hypothesis
concerning the origin of the Carolina Bays can be found
in the "Earth Impact Database" at:
Planetary and Space Science Centre | UNB
"The Earth Impact Database is a resource that
has been assembled since 1985 by researchers
at the Geological Survey of Canada (a division of
Natural Resources Canada). It has now been
transferred to the Planetary and Space Science
Centre at the University of New Brunswick
Department of Geology, owing to the restructuring
of various research programs of the GSC and
redeployment of many those who were formerly
engaged in its maintenance."
The list of identified craters is sorted by diameter at:
Planetary and Space Science Centre | UNB
Looking at the list a person can find recognized
craters starting with Haviland with a diameter of
15 m (45 ft) and Dalgaranga with a diameter of
24 m (73 ft). However, not a single Carolina Bay
can be found on this list.
If the Carolina Bays have any credibility among
conventional scientists as craters resulting from
either a meteorite or comet impact, they should
be on this list. The fact that none of the Carolina
Bays are listed on this list demonstrates that the
scientists involved in studying craters simply have
found any of the arguments for the Carolina Bays
being the result of an impact as being completely
unconvincing.
Also, where are any of the Carolina Bays on other
lists of verified impact structures as such as:
Terrestrial Impact Crater Structures
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/crater.htm
If the Carolina Bays are recognized as impact craters,
why are they not figured on the "Interactive Map of
Terrestrial Impact Craters"? This interactive
map can be found at:
Interactive Map
According to that map, the only recognized impact
crater on the East Coast is the Chesapeake Bay Impact
Structure at:
Chesapeake Bay Impact Structure
[Shortened too-long links. --Admin]
Woods Hole Coastal and Marine Science Center | U.S. Geological Survey
It is impossible to argue that this impact structure
is in anyway related to the Carolina Bays. In fact, the
Chesapeake Bay Impact has absolutely no surface
expression.
>Now on the impact theory, no one is saying that the
>impacts happened yesterday, everyone accepts the fact
>that the Bays are and have been under going modification
>by lacustrine and eolian processes which has effected
>their original alinement. These processes may have
>'detuned' the bays so that they are no longer pointed
>to a common source, as they once may have.
If a person accepts that the Carolina Bays have been
extensively modified by lacustrine and eolian processes,
than a person is left with the problem that the oval
and circular shapes that they now exhibit are not
their original shapes. As a result, the shapes and
orientations of the Carolina Bays cannot be used as
evidence of their origin unless it can be prove they
are somehow related to their origin.
>The theory being here that there may not have been
>enough time for the bay alinement to become completely
>random or purely local wind alined, so that much of the
>original 'signal' is still present.
If there has been modification of the shape and
orientation of the Carolina Bays, how do you know what
is "signal" from the origin of a Carolina Bay and what
is the result of post-origin modification of the Carolina
Bays? The problem here is that Mr. wmscott is assuming
that the orientations, which are consistent with an
impact origin, are the "original signal" because it fits
the "comet theory" and any deviations from these origins
are later modifications because they don't fit the
"comet theory". He has absolutely no data to show any
of the original "signal", shape and orientation of the
Carolina Bays, has survived from the origin of these
features. From what Has been reported about these
features from references cited in my last post, I find
it quite unlikely that any of the Carolina Bays retain
their original shape and orientation.
....text deleted...
>Your objections to all the comet fragments just happening
>to explode just above ground level overlooks the
>explanations given in the impact theory. Highly volatile
>comet fragments impacting the ground at a low angle are
>riding behind a 'pressure wave cone' that triggers an
>explosion in the volatile comet and creates the bay shaped
>hollow.
These ideas, proposed by Savage in his 1982 book, have
been shown to be completely scientifically bankrupt. The
"pressure cone wave" has been shown to be nothing more
rather imaginative, but scientifically bankrupt idea that
lack any basis in reality. Comet fragments would simply
**not** behave that way as research into impact cratering
has demonstrated in the twenty years since Savage
published his book. For the real dynamics of comet and
meteorite impacts, a person needs to read Melosh's book
"Impact Cratering". What is currently known about impact
theory clearly shows that the "explanations given in the
impact theory" provided by Savage have proved to be
simple-minded nonsense.
>Or so they tell me, personally I suspect that exploding
>on ground contact would create pretty much the same
>effect.
This not true. The ground explosion would produce a
classic impact crater, of which the Carolina Bays have very
few of the characteristics.
>The volatility of comets combined with a low impact
>angle and possibly a lower impact speed in this case,
>would create impact features completely different
>than what is seen in meteorite impact craters.
Unfortunately, none of what is said above is true.
Regardless of whether an object is meteorite or a
"volatile" comet and regardless of the angle of
impact, a well defined, classic meteorite crater will
result. Go read Melosh's book, "Impact Cratering"
for the details.
>I even found a reference on the web to "Gault's
>idea that the Bays could be formed by ejecta from a
>glacial impact."
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/shoelett.html
>which happens to be the mechanism I put forth in
>my book. Ice ejected from impacts on the ice sheet
>that could have hit the Carolinas would be following
>flatter suborbital trajectories and would have a
>much slower impact speed than impacting comet
>fragments and eliminates the need for an air burst.
This is as physically impossible as the ideas proposed
by Savage. First, an impact powerful enough to eject
large blocks of ice into suborbital trajectories would
have vaporized, melted, and completely shattered any
ice into very small fragments. Although the image of
large icebergs being ejecta into orbit by a comet impact
makes a wonderful image for a disaster movie, there
certainly isn't any scientific basis for accepting that
it could happen. In addition, an impact large enough to
do this would have left a very, very big crater and
spread impact eject over a large part of North America.
The idea is not only bad science, but also lacks any
evidence for having happened.
..text deleted...
Yours,
Bill Birkeland
Houston.
[This message has been edited by Admin, 04-07-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by wmscott, posted 04-01-2003 8:29 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by wmscott, posted 04-08-2003 8:37 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied

  
TR
Inactive Member


Message 171 of 234 (36446)
04-07-2003 8:37 PM


garden e danu
Hi! I am new to this forum. Maybe I don't belong here. I will soon find out. Ha! I am creating a website: "garden e danu" and I hope some of you will have a look at it and tell me what you think. You will find it here:
http://www.geocities.com/gardenofdanu/
I must warn you, I am NOT a professional geologist and have no degrees HOWEVER I am a trained BICYCLE MECHANIC. And if your bicycle ever breaks down anywhere near my place and you expect me to fix it you better be able to tell me you at least looked at my site.
Thanks,
TR

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by wmscott, posted 04-08-2003 8:33 PM TR has not replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6330 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 172 of 234 (36541)
04-08-2003 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by TR
04-07-2003 8:37 PM


Dear TR;
The web must not really be that big of a place after all, I just happen to have recently already visited your site. I am sure the administrator here will tell you to start your own topic thread, but I would like to comment on your flood theory. I see that you are following the Black Sea flooding theory put forward by Ryan & Pitman in their book. In my book I support a global flood. You may also want to read Graham Hancock's book "Underworld; The Mysterious Origins of Civilization" that promotes a sudden rise in sea level towards the end of the ice age that flooded the then inhabitable continental shelves. I address the Black Sea flooding theory in my book and support the theory that it was part of a larger event. The idea of a recent global flood has long been rejected by science, so when evidence turns up, it is interpreted in terms of a local event. Once one accepts the possibility of a global flood, then the pieces of evidence start falling into place in the larger scheme of things.
Wm Scott Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by TR, posted 04-07-2003 8:37 PM TR has not replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6330 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 173 of 234 (36542)
04-08-2003 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Bill Birkeland
04-07-2003 1:49 PM


Dear Bill Birkeland;
While your earlier posting was very pervasive, your last posting was lacking in logical argument and evidence. Which is disappointing since the evidence does seem to be on your side. Frankly you would have been much better off if you had skipped your last post. You seem to be presenting the argument that newer papers automatically supercede older papers. Personally, I put more weight in the evidence presented in a paper than it just having a recent publishing date. As for Savage's book being worthless due to it's ancient publishing date of 1982, you referred to a paper published in 1955 that was even referred to in the book!
quote:
physical mechanisms / model, which Savage presents for the formation, has been over the last 20 years, found to be completely unworkable. Over the twenty years, since Savage published his book, field studies and computer simulations / modeling has shown that meteorites don't impact and behave as Savage hypothesized in his book.
This would be a much better argument if you presented the evidence of those studies. Plus as I have been saying, comets not meteorites.
quote:
how can this book argue against hypotheses and explain data published in journal articles that were published in 1989, 2001, etc.
It can when the newer arguments are based on old theories. Much of what Savage wrote against the 'solution' or dissolving theory applies to the Silica-karst theory as well.
quote:
I don't understand how it would be possible to use trees to determine whether not Carolina Bays are indeed forming. Looking at the sizes and variations of trees on the Atlantic Coastal Plain would prove about whether Carolina Bays are now forming or not.
The tree reference was just an illustration that went right over your head. The point was that if Carolina Bays were constantly being formed, we would have a cross-section of Bays in all the different stages of their existence, rather than what we do have of them all being 'old'. In the paper you cited "Hydrogeologic and Geochemical Factors Required for the Development of Carolina Bays Along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, Coastal Plain,USA." by May, J. H. and Warne, A. G., 1999, stated "Holocene rise in sea level caused ground-water levels in the coastal plain to equilibrate near the present-day land surface. This curtailed geochemical weathering, as well as eolian and ice-related processes." So if the Silica-karst theory is correct, the Carolina Bays are relict features created by conditions in the Pleistocene and are not being formed by the climate conditions in the Holocene.
quote:
Presuming that a Carolina Bay is actively subsiding, the progressive deepening and change in bottom sediments still may not occur. The subsidence of such a feature will be so slow that the rate, at which it is filled by organic sediment and wind blow material can very easily match or exceed the rate at which it subsides. In such as case, a Carolina Bay can actively subside and still not show a progressive deepening.
The subsiding would still be obvious because the chain of events you describe would cause shallow water sediments to be found at the bottom of a deep depression. Multi able corings would reveal that the said layer existed at different elevations along the edge of the layer in the same lake, showing that portions of the lake had subsided, or a shallow water deposit covering the whole lake bottom would be found to also be present in a deep pocket in the middle.
While you failed to present any convincing evidence or arguments in your last post, the papers you cited of which I have been able to read some of, were very convincing. The paper "Hydrogeologic and Geochemical Factors Required for the Development of Carolina Bays Along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, Coastal Plain,USA." was the most relevant out of the papers I was able to get a hold of. The Silica-karst theory over comes most of the objections that Savage raised against the dissolution theory. I find the Silica-karst to be a workable and believable theory that probably is the current best answer for the formation of the Carolina Bays. There are still some unanswered questions, and one also has to allow for some of the evidence Savage presented to be wrong, but such things do happen. I have Melosh's book on "Impact Cratering" on order at the library and will read it as soon as I get a hold of it. I also want to read the book "The Carolina Bays: a comparison with modern oriented lakes." if I can. In short I think you are probably right about the formation of the Carolina Bays, but I wish to do some more research to be sure.
I also would like to point out that it would be easy to prove the Silica-karst theory by coring and mapping subsidence in Bay sediment layer edges, the ring in the bathtub, if it isn't level, somebody tipped the tub. Corings taken near a Carolina Bay could also be checked for the presence or absence of microtektites, which could be the final death rattle for the impact theory since a comet impact on sandy soil should have created a great quantity of them.
So in conclusion I find I have to agree with you on how the Bays were created.
Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Bill Birkeland, posted 04-07-2003 1:49 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6330 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 174 of 234 (37401)
04-20-2003 4:57 PM


on a possible closing note.
One of the original reasons for posting my here was to get feed back on my flood theory as published in the book "Solving The Mystery of the Biblical Flood" so that I could make any necessary corrections in the next edition. So far, it would appear that the following changes can be made.
1. Buoyancy due to greater water displacement due to increased sea levels is NOT a factor in isostatic forces effecting island elevations due to the fact that the increase in displacement is matched by an increase in pressure on the ocean crust due to the increased depth of water.
2. The Carolina Bays are probably not impact craters and are most likely created by Silica-karst processes.
3. Since the global flood occurred in late glacial times when large areas were covered by glaciers and ice sheets, the flood waters may have only had to have reached the edges of the ice for the entire world to be considered covered with water in terms of being a global flood. Considering the fact that ice floats, the ice surfaces would have remained exposed regardless of the depth of the flood waters. This modification allows for high elevations to have been covered by ice age glaciers and greatly reduces the rise in sea level necessary to flood the world. Which in turn reduces the volume of water necessary to create such a flood to a size while still above current estimates of late glacial ice volumes, does enter into the range of some of the larger size estimates of possibly larger LGM estimates that have been made.
4. The research on finding Marine Diatoms as traces of a recent global needs to improved by adding more sampling sites and application of stratigraphic knowledge to identify any samples that have possibly been contaminated by human activities. The sampling site referred to in the book has a known history and has not been contaminated, but to extend the sampling to other sites, the history of each site will not be as well known so a stratigraphic analyzation will be necessary to weed out contaminated sites. Currently mined Diatom deposits all date to the lower Pliocene or earlier such as the Monterey deposit which is the largest single source in the world, so only diatoms from later periods will be reliable indicators at sites with unknown histories. Of course the major source fo possible contamination that makes Diatom mining look insignificant is use of solar salt which is gathered by evaporating sea water and has recent marine diatom species. Solar salt is more expensive than rock salt and this tends to restrict it's use to premium applications such as water softening rather than less demanding uses such as road salting. Solar salt is of course the major sample contamination worry, since it is more difficult to weed out, to do so will require looking for the presence of marine diatoms that have appeared in the oceans after end of the ice age. The finding of any post flood diatoms will indicate more recent contamination with marine diatoms.
Integrating the stratigraphic examinations in the sample examinations will require improvements in the laboratory procedures used. It will take some time to develop new laboratory procedures, possibly several years. Currently I am attempting to get a hold of books on the stratigraphic appearance of marine diatoms, most of the books on this subject are out of print and were very expensive, one had a list price of nearly a thousand dollars. Which probably explains the nearly complete lack of such books from the library systems I have access to. Some of the books and articles I am looking for are these listed below.
Cupp, E.E. (1943) [ref. 001161]. Marine plankton diatoms of the west
coast of North America. Bulletin Scripps Institution of Oceanography of
the University of California. University of California Press, 5(1),
1-238, pls. 1-5, 168 text fig.
Fenner, J. (1985) [ref. 005896]. Late Cretaceous to Oligocene planktonic
diatoms. In: Planktonic Stratigraphy, H.M. Bolli, J.B. Saunders & K.
Perch-Nielsen (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 15,
713-762.
Barron, J.A. (1985) [ref. 008073]. Miocene to Holocene planktic diatoms.
Plankton Stratigraphy, Bolli, H.M., Saunders, J.B. & Perch-Nielsen, K.
(eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985, 763-809.
Witkowski, A., Lange-Bertalot, H. & D. Metzeltin (2000) [ref. 009017].
Diatom Flora of Marine Coasts I. In: Lange-Bertalot, H. (ed.), 2000,
Annotated diatom micrographs. Diversity-Taxonomy-Identification.
Iconographia Diatomologica, Vol. 7, 7, 925 pp., 219 pls.
If you have information on how I could acquire any of these, I would be interested in hearing about it. I am also interested in the details of laboratory procedures on processing diatoms samples and concentrating the samples for slide mounting. Currently I am using a filter backflushed with a drop of water onto a slide to create a water mount. Better procedures that selectively concentrate diatoms onto a permanent mounted slide are desired. Any helpful input would be appreciated.
Since this thread seems to be winding down, I would like any input on any other areas that should be changed in my book. If I have had to conceded on another points on this long thread that I have fail to list above, please point it out to me. My goal here is to create a list of necessary changes that I can refer to in the future when rewriting my book.
In conclusion of this posting and possibly this thread as well, I would like to say thank you to nearly everyone who posted here. We have not always agreed, but I have always found your comments interesting, thought provoking and have appreciated hearing them. After over a year of debate, I feel that I have been helped to correct a number of errors and prune my theory so that it today has a better form than when I started. I still feel there is much more that needs to be done, but at least a good start has been made. Perhaps the most valuable thing I have acquired here is I now understand how the other side thinks and the type and level of evidence that is viewed as necessary to establish the occurrence of the deluge. I do believe that it is possible to meet those expectations which would truly create a most interesting series of events in the scientific community and alter the way science is viewed and interacted with by the public. I also realize that many of you believe that you have conclusively shown the deluge to be an impossible none event, despite what you may think, I have always been very aware of the strengths of your arguments. I also have been aware of the loop holes and limits of the logic and evidence those arguments are based on. In all this time on this thread, no one has posted anything that absolutely excluded the occurrence of a recent global flood. The occurrence of a YEC type flood has been absolutely disproved by many very solid posts on this thread and many others, but it is frequently overlooked that disproving the YEC flood theories doesn't disprove all global flood theories. This little logic error has eluded many as has the error of believing in the absolute reliability of current theories. Obviously if current theories were 100% reliable, research would be a waste of money since we would already know the final answers, which of course is ridiculous and highlights the fact that current theories have a reliably factor of less than 100% meaning that some things are in error or are at least incomplete in our understanding of them. Which is why a conflict with present knowledge is not reason enough for automatic rejection of new theories. For example the oxygen isotope ratios used to predict the maximum size of the former ice sheets does not preclude the occurrence of a global flood. The ratios are temperature dependant and are not 100% accurate so larger ice volumes are a possibility and even if the ratios are correct, a shallower type global flood was still possible. The limits in what is know in science means that it is not possible to exclude the possibility of a recent global flood with 100% reliability, those who believe otherwise fail to understand the state of knowledge regarding the ending of the last ice age. There are far too many unanswered questions to unilaterally exclude a deluge as a possible cause of some the events.
-- Wm. Scott Anderson.

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6330 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 175 of 234 (39150)
05-06-2003 9:41 PM


A victorious conclusion to a long debate?
Since in response to my last post there are no further posts on additional changes I need to make in my flood theory, it would seem that I can conclude this thread by announcing a VICTORY. Only seems fair that if no one is able or willing to challenge my theory on how the Biblical flood happened, I can claim victory in this debate. While I may have not been able to supply the level of definitive evidence it would take to convince everyone here of the occurrence of a recent global flood, they have been unable to post any evidence that would prohibit such an event. Since I have posted evidence that supports a global flood that no one has been able to successfully overturn, the out come of this debate has definitely been in favor of the deluge.
Hopefully the thought of the position of Biblical flood "winning" a debate on the EVC board will wake up our sleepy posters, otherwise this thread has come to an end and I can take my "VICTORY" and go. So last chance, does anyone know of any evidence that would preclude the occurrence of a recent global flood as described in this thread? I know that there are plenty of people on this board with negative opinions of my flood theory, but let's see if there are any with negative evidence. So last chance to post your best evidence against my Biblical flood theory.
For those of you who may have just stumbled across this while searching the web for information on the Biblical flood, there has been a long debate here about a flood theory I published in my book "Solving The Mystery of the Biblical Flood" Here is my book.
Available at https://www1.xlibris.com/bookstore/bookdisplay.asp?bookid...
While posting on this board I have seen many try to defend the biblical flood who have done about as well as if they had been throw into a tank full of hungry piranhas, their unworkable impossible theories are quickly stripped bare here and their errors exposed, while I have been posting here for a year and a half. It has been a battle of course, but piranhas here have found my theory too tough to chew to pieces and have become so wary that I now have to post teasers like this to try to coax them into biting. I am conducting an experiment to see what parts of my theory are vulnerable to attack and needs to be improved, overall it has done extremely well. I have to conclude this post now so I can watch and see if I get any bites.
--Wm Scott Anderson

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by crashfrog, posted 05-06-2003 11:12 PM wmscott has replied
 Message 178 by Bill Birkeland, posted 05-07-2003 7:17 PM wmscott has not replied
 Message 179 by Bill Birkeland, posted 05-07-2003 8:43 PM wmscott has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1549 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 176 of 234 (39164)
05-06-2003 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by wmscott
05-06-2003 9:41 PM


Re: A victorious conclusion to a long debate?
I haven't really been following this thread, so I guess I have a few questions:
1) Does your theory rely on modern animals decending from populations aboard an ark?
2) If not how did modern life survive a recent global flood?
3) If so, why doesn't population genetics reveal that kind of massive bottleneck?
4) If all humans are the decendants of Noah and his family, how were there enough people to build the Pyramids AND leave Egypt in the big exodus? How do you go from like 8 people to some 2.5 million or more in a few generations?
5) Why aren't flood stories more common?
6) Aren't there contiguous Chinese records before, during, and after the time the flood is said to have occured? (Somebody on the board mentioned these; I haven't been able to find a link.) Why don't they mention the flood?
That's just the stuff I've come up with. Obviously it's mostly biological. But it seems to me that a global flood has consequences that stretch beyond the geological. (Indeed, it's "global" in its consequences, if you'll pardon the pun.) Maybe you've managed to bend geological evidence into your flood story, but from the biological perspective I remain unconvinced.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by wmscott, posted 05-06-2003 9:41 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by wmscott, posted 05-08-2003 6:13 PM crashfrog has replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1071 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 177 of 234 (39174)
05-07-2003 12:24 AM


I'm sorry, I could probably think of some questions to ask you, however, I don't know enough about your model - other than the few posts I've read here. This thread is 176 posts long and it seems there was a previous one in the neighborhood of 460 posts. Would you perhaps be willing to post a concluding summary of your model and your best evidence for a global flood? Or point me to a post with this info already in it?

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by wmscott, posted 05-08-2003 6:14 PM roxrkool has replied

  
Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2613 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 178 of 234 (39292)
05-07-2003 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by wmscott
05-06-2003 9:41 PM


Re: A victorious conclusion to a long debate?
In Message 175 of 177
Mr. wmscott wrote:
05-06-2003 08:41 PM
"A victorious conclusion to a long debate? Since in
response to my last post there are no further posts
on additional changes I need to make in my flood
theory, it would seem that I can conclude this
thread by announcing a VICTORY. Only seems
fair that if no one is able or willing to challenge
my theory on how the Biblical flood happened, I
can claim victory in this debate."
------------------
Given that this is nothing more than a messageboard, which is unknown to more 99.999 percent of the experts in the field of Quaternary geology and paleoclimatology, you have achieved nothing of a victory. If Mr. wmscott actually argued his ideas against real experts, he will find that he has achieved nothing in the way of a "victory". All the above claim of "victory" indicates is how completely YE creationists deluded themselves with trvial matters about how credible their ideas are. There is a difference between "victory" and somone's opponenets getting bored enough with the same old arguments that they find something else more entertaining and worthwhile to do with their
time.
If you presented your ideas at a meeting of the American Quaternary Association (AMQUA) or any international association of Quaternary geologists, your model wouldn't survive 4 minutes. I predict that your ideas would get sliced, diced, and shredded into innumerable pieces. If you manged to survive a presentation of your ideas at such as meeting that might be a minor victory.
I would be more impressed with Mr. wmscott's ideas if he could prepare a paper about them and got that paper published in either "Boreas", "Geological Society of America Bulletin", or "Quaternary Research". However, I suspect that the posibblity that wil happen is nonexistent. This is not because of any prejuduice on the part of conventional scientists, but because of the badly flawed nature of the arguments and research behind his work. I would certainly challenge Mr. Wmscott to put his best arguments together in a paper and submit it for publication in one of the above journals and keep us posted on the results of his efforts. Publication of such a paper would be a real victory.
(It also would be very intersting to see what would happen if this paper was submitted to "Creation Ex Nihlo Technical Journal". A "peer-review" by people sypathetic with Mr. Wmscott's ideas would be quite revealing.)
Beside, I suspect that nobody has recently posted anything against your ideas because they have bored with the way this topic has been discussed to death and found it was a waste of time to continue discussing hopeleeslly scientifically bankrupt ideas in a thread ,which is going nowhere, and gone onto pursuing other more profitable or interesting matter. A major reason that people have stopped posting is that like others, I have better things to do than argue science with someone who still has a long, long way to go before he knows what he is talking about and proposes a hypothese so unsupported by the evidence that it poses absolutely no threat to conventional science and, will be taken seriously only by people, e.g. YE creationists, looking for science fiction of some sort to justify a very narrow, literal interpretation of the Bible. A person can only beat a dead horse for so long before finding way more useful, fun, or some combination of both to use their time. For example, I have joined a group of geologists, who providing assistance in the rebuilding of the Iraq Directorate of Geology and depts. of geology in Iraq universities that were totally destroyed by the looting and other aftermaths of the 2nd Gulf War. I will be devoting more of my time toward that project which will have far more than arguing about ideas that are going nowhere fast.
The above claims of "victory" remind me alot of Baghdad Bob's claim that there were no either US troops in Baghdad of those present were getting soundly defeated.
Also just because a person gets a book published, especially by a company like Xlibris, which allows an author to self-publish without any editorial review is no victory. I predict that his book will join the many other books published by nonscientific book publishers about Atlantis, various sorts of global catastrophes, UFOs, alien abductions, and so forth and ignored by all but true believers because they make their case with such flawed arguments and evidence, nobody considers them worth their time refuting them. There is so much junk science published in books dnd so little time that a person has focuse only on those that have some chance being taken seriously and ignore the rest.
A person can find more about Xlibris Publishers at:
https://www1.xlibris.com/about/index.asp
"About Xlibris
Xlibris gives you the tools you need to become
your own publisher. You give us your manuscript,
we work with you to format it and design the
cover, and then the completed file is stored
digitally."
It is only a hobby to argue with people like Mr. wmscott. Like many hoobies, I have to pass on them when I have serious things to do like work, finding oil, and more fun things to, e.g., like going on vacation to visit Lake Baikal in Siberia. To interpret my absent and others absence as a victory is a mistake and an exercise in self-delusion. All it means, is that I have either gotten bored with arguing about the same old technobabble that contributes nothing constructive to society; looking for something more challegening to do, e.g., learning knitting; or doing something more interesting to do, e.g., visiting Lake Baikal,, than discussing geology with someone who still doesn't much of what he is talking about and has nothing new to say and whose
idea;s will have no impact at all on conventional geology.
+++++++++
It was asked:
"So last chance, does anyone know of any evidence
that would preclude the occurrence of a recent
global flood as described in this thread?"
Any good book on Quaternary Geology and Quaternary Paleoclimatogy will contains numerous peices of evidence that easy refuted the concept of a late Pleistiocene Flood proposed by Mr. wmscott. Specific evidence that refute Mr. wmscott's reasearch can be found in the PAGE's newletters at:
http://www.pages.unibe.ch/products/newsletters.html
One issue, the "Long Record" issue, Vol. 7 No 3
(December, 1999)
That issue contains various long records of paloeclimatology and paleoenvironments that all refute Mr. wmscott's arguments. There is also a bunch of other evidence and data from many other sources mentioned on the PAGEs web page that also refute his ideas.
Yours,
Bill Birkeland
{off to Russia on vacation very, very early tomorrow morning :-) :-)
[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 05-07-2003]
[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 05-07-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by wmscott, posted 05-06-2003 9:41 PM wmscott has not replied

  
Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2613 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 179 of 234 (39311)
05-07-2003 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by wmscott
05-06-2003 9:41 PM


No -- Re: A victorious conclusion to a long debate?
In Message 175 of 177
Mr. wmscott wrote:
"So last chance, does anyone know of any evidence
that would preclude the occurrence of a recent
global flood as described in this thread?"
For an of some of incredible amount of evidence that refutes Mr. wmscott ypothesis, a person need only go read one of many books such as;
Ruddiman, W. F., and Wright, H. H., Jr., 1987, North America and
Adjacent Oceans. The Geology of North America, vol. K-3,
geological , Society of America, Boulder, CO
That book, Chapters 13, 14, and 15, discusses a number of pollen sequences from numerous lakes across North America that span the period of time during which Mr. wmscott alleges his Biblical flood occurred and utterly fail to show any evidence of any sort of catastrophe. There is nothing within the fluvial and lakes deposits, which accumulated during the period which Mr. wmscott alleges his Biblical Flood occurred that show any evidence of any major catastrophe. There innumerable other published pollen data found in many published papers and summarized in various books, which also refute Mr. wmscott's ideas. Contray to what Mr. wmscott would like to believe, there is an abundance of evidence out there that readily refutes his ideas, which he will find if he bothers to research what is known about the Pleistocene. However, I doubt that the facts are enough to disuade him from wasting time, effort, and a good chunk of life on an idea which many published papers and books conclusively demonstrated to be invalid and scientifically bankrupt.
Also, a person can find numerous papers with palynological evidence for lake cores and other sources in the "North American Pollen Database" list of references at:
North American Pollen Database - References
North American Pollen Database - Unacquired Sites Inventory - Mainmenu
Mr. wmscott shoulld take the time to attend an American Quaternary Society (AMQUA) or Geological society of America Meeting and discuss his ideas in person with people who are real experts in Pleistocene and Quaternary geology, climatology, and paleoenvironments. There, not on messageboards like this, he will find out what the basic problems his ideas are.
He also can attend a "Friends of the Pleistocene" (FOP) fieldtrip, which occur annually in six different parts of United States. They are a good place where a person has the opportunity to talk informally with all sorts of Quaternary geologists, soil scientists, palynologists, and Earth Scientists who study the Holocene, Pleistocene, and Quateranry research that he or she is oding and get useful feedback and advice, and suggestions.
An example of some of their field trips can be found at:
http://www4.nau.edu/.../v30n1/friends_of_the_pleistocene.htm
The Midwest Friends of the Pleistocene field trip, which last usually 2 and a half days around a weekend, is one that Mr. wmscott could possibly attend.
Some Web Pages
QUATERNARY PALYNOLOGY
Page not found | Geosciences
NOAA Palaoclimatology
Error 404: Page or Resource Not Found | NCEI
Error 404: Page or Resource Not Found | NCEI
Overhead transparencies
http://www.pages.unibe.ch/products/overheads.html
If I had more to spend on this subject I could pot the citation of numerous published papers, all presenting evidence that refutes Mr. wmscott's ideas. However, I have better things to do with my life than do the homework that Mr. wmscott needs to be doing himself.
If Mr. Mr. wmscott really beileives that he has a case for his Biblical Flood, I challenge him to submit a paper for publication to either "Boreas", "Geological Societyof America", or "Quaternary Research" instead of publishing books with the vanity publishers where no scientist will pay any serious attention to them. If he can get a paper published in any one of those journals, he would have a real victory instead of the nonexistent one he claims, like Baghdad Bob claimed in Baghdad, in his previous messages.
Yours,
Bill Birkeland
(Soon to be visiting Lake Bailkal) :-) :-) :-)
[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 05-07-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by wmscott, posted 05-06-2003 9:41 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by wmscott, posted 05-08-2003 6:18 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6330 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 180 of 234 (39447)
05-08-2003 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by crashfrog
05-06-2003 11:12 PM


Dear crashfrog
quote:
1) Does your theory rely on modern animals descending from populations aboard an ark?
No.
quote:
2) If not how did modern life survive a recent global flood?
I believe there was an ark, but that it carried only a few animals and the vast majority of animals we have today survived on their own through rafting and other traditional flood survival methods.
quote:
3) If so, why doesn't population genetics reveal that kind of massive bottleneck?
A massive 'YEC everything on ark' type bottleneck of course doesn't exist, but what we do have is the Pleistocene extinction event which did create a genetic bottleneck as indicated by ice age fossil remains Verus present day animals.
quote:
4) If all humans are the descendants of Noah and his family, how were there enough people to build the Pyramids AND leave Egypt in the big exodus? How do you go from like 8 people to some 2.5 million or more in a few generations?
The number of generations may not have been as few as some think, and of course humans are pretty prolific breeders in their own right.
quote:
5) Why aren't flood stories more common?
Middle age memory loss? well that is my excuse. Perhaps because it was longer ago than many consider, look at the lack of stories of life in the ice age.
quote:
6) Aren't there contiguous Chinese records before, during, and after the time the flood is said to have occurred? (Somebody on the board mentioned these; I haven't been able to find a link.) Why don't they mention the flood?
I fix the occurrence of the flood as a late ice age event which would put it before the rise of all historic civilizations. I like to favor the Biblical date allowing for the possibly that much of dating of our early history may have been pushed too far into the past, but I also allow for the possibility that the Biblical chronologies are missing a number of generations which would push the biblical date back into the past. So rather than saying that the flood happened on this or that date at 4:35 pm or whatever, I concentrate my efforts on first proving the occurrence of the event before I worry about exact dating.
--Wm Scott Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by crashfrog, posted 05-06-2003 11:12 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by crashfrog, posted 05-08-2003 8:32 PM wmscott has replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6330 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 181 of 234 (39448)
05-08-2003 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by roxrkool
05-07-2003 12:24 AM


Dear Roxrkool;
quote:
Would you perhaps be willing to post a concluding summary of your model and your best evidence for a global flood? Or point me to a post with this info already in it?
I pulled parts of a few old posts written for other people so the writing may jump around a bit, this first paste was written to a YEC.
1. the earth and life is very old. (billions of years old)
2. The geologic record records the long existence of life on this planet and was not created by the flood.
3. There never was a 'canopy' or underground water sources for the flood.
4. There have been a number of ice ages, and it was the abrupt ending of the last one that flooded the world.
5. The flood was triggered by comet impact event or events occurring on the North America ice sheet and possibly others as well. These impacts caused an 'impact winter' with associated heavy global rains as predicted by impact theories and as described in the Biblical record.
6. The already on going melting of the ice age glaciers combined with the impact events resulted in the documented releases of 'Super Floods' of glacial melt waters being released from the ice sheets. This water flowed into the sea and caused them to rise above the land. (how the flood gates of the deep were opened)
7. The sea level rose progressively and did little erosional damage to the earth's surface except for areas where the terrain funneled the moving water which created the streamlined super flood erosion found in those areas. Minimal erosion is indicated by the fact that the ice age surface is still intact in most areas.
8. At the end of the flood the increased water depth pushed the ocean floors down which in turn caused an uplift in the land areas. We find evidence of this in uplift and depression and tilting associated with the comings and goings of the ice ages.
The next sections contain some of the evidence I cite in support of the Deluge.
Relic lakes containing trapped marine life that has adapted to fresh water, records the occurrence of a recent marine transgression at high elevations. The extent of the post ice sea level rise is indicated by the location of some of the relict lakes which contain sea like which has recently had to adapt to fresh water. "Lakes Titicaca and Poopo in South America have invertebrates which have marine affinities and carp-like fishes which have been claimed to have such affinities." (The Quaternary Era; by J.K. Charlesworth 1957, volume two, p.1418) Lake Titicaca, located in the Andes mountains at an elevation of 12,500 feet above sea level, is a relict lake and is the highest navigable lake in the world. The lake is 120 miles long and 50 miles wide covering 3,200 square miles with a maxim depth of 600 feet. The reason the same marine life is found in both lake Titicaca and lake Poopo is that they were both once part of lake Ballivian which formerly had a level 330 feet above the current level of lake Titicaca. Before it dried up into two smaller lakes, lake Ballivian would of had an elevation of 12,830 feet above sea level and contained marine life recently trapped from the sea.
The Arctic Ringed seal turns up in Caspian Sea which is over a thousand miles away from the Arctic Ocean. The only reasonable explanation for finding the Ringed Seal so far to the south trapped in inland bodies of water, is that they were trapped there by a recent rise in sea level. The Caspian Sea not only has sea life from the Arctic Sea, it also has a number of living things from the Mediterranean Sea. Of the life that is indigenous to the Caspian Sea, 6% is from the Mediterranean Sea and 3% is from the Arctic. (The Caspian Sea by A.N. Kosarev and E.A. Yablonskaya 1994, p.122) The fact that at the end of the Ice Age, the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea and the Arctic Ocean were all joined together as shown by the types of marine life found in the Caspian Sea, is undeniable.
The Arctic Ringed Seal also turns up in Lake Baikal (elevation 1493 feet) in Siberia is nearly 1,000 miles from the ice covered arctic ocean and also has sponges, herring and salmon (Omul). All of which have adapted to freshwater. There are also beach terraces in the area that are found as high as 4,600 feet above the lake level of 1493 feet or 6093 feet above sea level. (The Quaternary Era; With Special Reference to it's Glaciation by J.K. Charlesworth 1957, volume two, p.1119)
High level terraces have been reported in a number of locations around the world. Southeastern Ohio, 1100 to 2580 ft, Connecticut up to 1680 ft, Massachusetts up to 2,250 ft, Pennsylvania at 1,300 ft, Scotland 1150 ft, Alps 6190 ft, Tasmania 4,300 ft, "Carolina bays, Mina Mound, Submarine Canyons and other Topographical Phenomena" by William R. Corliss, Pages 77-83. Beaches with seashells at altitudes between 1,200 and 1,300 ft found in Great Britain and some Pacific islands, (1,250 ft on the Hawaii islands) (1,300 ft on the Marquesas islands) and the Persian gulf area 1230 ft. Pages 66-72.
Uplifted Erratics above 1000 ft are found in a number of places around the world, Great Britain 2200 ft, New Hampshire 6000 ft, Alberta Rockies 4260 ft, and Wyoming 6750 ft. "Neglected Geological Anomalies" William R. Corliss, pages 222-6.
There is evidence to support a late glacial global flooding event. Such an event would leave behind traces of marine life stranded on land far from the sea in places we otherwise would not expect to find it. One example of this is the Michigan Whale bones. The bones were isolated bones found buried in recent glacial till by stream action and dug up by basement excavations. The whales represented are modern whales and the bones are recent. There are also glacial drop stones found in non glaciated areas that must have been dropped by floating ice and there are marine diatoms found in places far inland in places the sea supposedly never reached.
Then at the end of such a flood the sea floors, which the shift of water back to the seas would have been depressed back down to their pre ice age positions and the land would have rebounded to it's former pre ice age elevations as well. We also have plenty of evidence to support these movements in the form of river erosion on the submerged continental shelves, submerged sea mounts that were recently above water, sluggish ice age drainage patterns, patterns seen in late and post ice age tilting in coastal areas and off shore sediment patterns.
There is also much more evidence in other fields as well, human and some animal DNA distribution patterns, the late ice age extinction event, the pattern seen in the replacement of ice age animals by modern animals, archeology, folklore and human migration movements. There is a lot of evidence supporting a recent global which is why it took a book to publish it.
That is some of the highlights that we have been discussing, you can do a search for specific terms to find the places where we have discussed things in more detail. I hope this gives you an idea of my general position, of course you could always read by book, it now does have the advantage of being much shorter than the combined length of these two threads.
--Wm Scott Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by roxrkool, posted 05-07-2003 12:24 AM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by roxrkool, posted 05-08-2003 11:52 PM wmscott has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024