Is the Global Flood Feasible? Discussion Q&A

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"I also want to draw TCs attention to message 181, or any other creation "scientist"
--I'm working on this one, bump it up for me again on Friday and saturday, just incase I forget it, I'll come home at about 10-12 at night and do some work on it for friday and on saturday i'll have time also.

​

---

JM: You need more than time! You need to explain the blatant misuse of data by creationists (yourself included) and explain how this misuse fits with the claim of a 'higher morality'. Humphrey's misuse of the archeomagnetic data would have him tossed out of most academic circles. I dare say it is nearly criminal. Your misrepresentation of the work of coe and Prevot is not much better, but perhaps you can be forgiven since you are merely parroting what you have found on the internet without any attempt to verify its veracity. Either way, your argument is in trouble.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
I have not been 'blaintly missusing' data by creaitonists, I have given a resource that gives information that challenges the topic of magnetic reversals, I gave it in accordance with being relevant to a discussion. Also, I had no doubt that I would obtain a skeptical response, or atleast one that confronts the argument. I showed in my own words no sarcasm such as 'I'd like to see any evolutionist explain this' or 'This is true and I think your ignorant to pass the evidence', nor have I ever done so.

---

JM: The problem is that the evidence you provided is misleading at best and downright dishonest at worst. That you posted it uncritically is not an excuse.

quote:

---

"Humphrey's misuse of the archeomagnetic data would have him tossed out of most academic circles."
--Not at the time Joe, mind you, this was 10 years ago.

---

JM: No, he misused the data available at the time. He copied it out of Merrill and McElhinny's book and changed the axis to make it look like something it wasn't.

quote:

---

--Refer to my first statement, I havent even responded to the response as of yet. I merely proposed a position that is valid for such a proposal and a discussion or challenge. As for Mark seemingly has posted this before, I had not seen it, or do not remember it, though I guess it may be time to come back to it.

---

JM: Once again your excuse is that you uncritically cited someone else's error in support of your position. What sort of argument is that?CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Hey Mark, I thought that it would be interesting to pick a topic for this forum now that its back, instead of replying to your massive post and keeping the questions in such a large spectrum. I found that there has been relevence to lithification, mabye you could reitterate in this prospect.

---

JM: TC, your posts would make a little more sense if you stopped trying to use 'big' words. For example, your last sentence would make more sense if you wrote:The process of lithification is interesting, shall we discuss it?At least I think this is what you are trying to say. I understand that you want to 'sound older', but trust me simplicity has its value!CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Oceanic sedimentation is more concentrated toward the continents because of sea-floor spreading, however.

---

JM: YEs, according to your model, the sediments would be nearly 15 meters thick! Now, get back to your calculus.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"JM: YEs, according to your model, the sediments would be nearly 15 meters thick! Now, get back to your calculus."
--With today's sedimentary flux rates, sure (though actually with the uniformitarian assumption, it would only be about 10-100 cm. in various ocean areas)

---

JM: No, it has nothing to do with uniformitarian rates! It's based on the space available in Baumgardner's flood model. The 15 meters is based on creationist physics!CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"JM: No, it has nothing to do with uniformitarian rates! It's based on the space available in Baumgardner's flood model. The 15 meters is based on creationist physics!"
--Can you clarify what you mean by 'space available'? And is this sediment oceanic sediments, continental or total? thanx.

---

Well, the ocean basins are good repositories for sediments. Since there is only space for 15 meters of sediment in the ocean, you've little space left to put much more. You can argue a bit for additional subsidence caused by loading, but there isn't enough space to significantly load the crust. You are getting flighty TC. Why not stick to one argument and develop it thoroughly. You're avoiding the details of your model by posting willy-nilly all over this site. How's about we stick to a discussion of your model and the consequences. Focus is important!CheersJoe Meert

Here are some simple no-flood evidences:(1) No creationist has told us what specific rocks were deposited by the flood. They make sweeping and vague statements so as to not be caught by:Paleosols-ancient soil horizons found throughout the geologic record. Specifically, soils that form when exposed to the elements means that they could not have been part of a global flood sequence.Fossil Sorting: Fossils are found in a regular order. Floods are chaotic.Continental glaciations throughout the geologic record- Evidence that glaciers have covered different parts of the earth many times in the past does not fit with a global flood.In short, creationists have not presented any evidence for a global flood other than to assert it happened. They won't be specific because the specifics challenge their assertions.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
For a very rudimentary illustration on how fossil succession is basically found:

​

​

---This is expected by both uniformitarian and Flood Geology, it is evidence by interpretation. Of course any critique is urged.

​

---

JM: Your diagram makes no sense. By Nich do you mean Niche or is nich supposed to be some 'representative fossil'. Honestly though, I have no clue what your diagram is supposed to be representative of. It certainly has nothing to do with uniformitarian geology. By the way, what is your definition for uniformitarian?CheersJoe Meert

​

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]Joe, that's a nice diagram that TC has shown (although I agree I'm at a loss as to what the 'Nich' are!). The dark areas are areas of abundant fossils and light areas are few.[/QUOTE]

​

JM: I got that much. Other than that, I am at a loss.

​

quote:

---

The usual sort of diagrams I've come across in good paleontology texts include 'balloon' diagrams showing the occurrance of fossils in time/strata vertically and in abundance horizontally. TC's diagram is another way of showing this and as TC says it can be interpreted as the statistical result of hydrodynamic sorting and burial or the coming and going of spceies throughout geological time.

---

​

JM: It does?

​

quote:

---

This is why evolutionists can say: 'No real evoltuonist uses the fossil record to distinguish between evolution and special creation'. This famous quote from New Scientist, made by a contemporary evolutionist in the 1990s, goes on to state that the best evidence for evoltuion is rather homology and biogeography.

---

​

JM: Please supply the full quote in context. I am a little suspicious of quote mining!.

​

[QUOTE] IMO the emperor has no clothes.

​

[/b]

---

JM: You know what they say about opinions? How about some evidence?CheersJoe Meert

​

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by wj:
[B]Why not refer to another apparent Mark Ridley quote?"The theory of evolution is outstandingly the most
important theory in biology."
-- Mark Ridley, _Evolution_, Blackwell Scientific, Boston, 1983. [/QUOTE]JM: As I mentioned, selective quotation has long been one of the 'strong arms' of creationist argument. At the same time, I must say that TB used this quote specifically to argue against paleontologic evidence for evolution. I did not find this quote particularly damning of the fossil record (as I suspected). Just because Ridley does not think it is the most important aspect does not mean it is not an important aspect. The sheer retrodictive power of the fossil record argues for its utility in evolutionary biology.CheersJoe Meert

​

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

Moving this to the appropriate thread. Tranquility Base writes: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]I could point you to ICR web pages (and I will when I've got time). For now let me just say that, a priori, and qualitatively, the idea is possible if you accept that somehow decay rates have evolved. In detail, we'll see. But do you guys really think you have a real detailed explanaiton how each layer of the geological column got there? You most certainly have not! On the sea-floor spreading we actually sort of agree, it's just a timescale issue. With vast radiogenic heating it is a priori reasonable to expect accelrated spreading, reversals and continental drift.[/QUOTE]JM: No it's not just a time scale issue! It is a depth of the ocean issue! Please supply evidence for rapid drift (and how the oceans obtained their present-day depth profile), how accelerated decay caused rapid reversals (and how the older reversals and younger reversal record occurred). Why the period of rapid reversals contains two of the longest non-reversing intervals in earth history and the mechanism for rapid drift without varying mantle conditions to absurd degrees.

quote:

---

The correlated stripes - I'm saying you get correlations between the stripes and the radioisotope proportins and the magenetic data because we agree with you that the stripes oozed out as magma one at a time and 'froze' the magnetic and radio data. It works for both of us - for you it is over 500 million years or so, for us it is over the flood year and following decade(s).

---

JM: This is nonsense. The correlations are based on both oceanic and land sections. Your assertions that stripes oozed out is naive. Magma is what was erupted and acquired a magnetism directed along the field at the time. It's a passive recorder. It does not work for you at all because you've no mechanism for rapid reversal, you've not explained how rapid reversal occurs and you've not shown why it correlates so well to land-based sequences. Why not try answering the questions I've posed in the "Help for the TC model thread"? So far, you are parroting material you've read on a biased religious site with no attempt at critical review. This is poor science from a 'Phded' physicist!CheersJoe Meert[/b][/QUOTE]

quote:

---

Any of us who have ever read research level paleontology monographs know that my 'hand waving' about no family to family transitions is true. These texts on vertebrate and invertebrate paleontology have almost nothing to say about transitions! I'm serious. Each species comes (and may go) abruptly just as Gould et al says. There is no lead up in transitonal forms - that is a fairytale. Gould was right about that.

---

JM: This is false and I am surprised that a 'Phded' physcist would make such a remark. You are providing misleading information with respect to Gould. Gould notes clearly that there are many transitional forms. You should be ashamed of yourself for repeating this nonsense in support of your argument. I like discussion, but when discussion turns to misrepresentation, it's no longer scientifically worthwhile.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I'm sorry you think I'm sprouting a falsehood. What I said is based on reading four research level monographs which document the raw data of the vertebrate and invertebrate fossil records.

​

I can tell from the number of times these books have been borrowed that almost no-one has ever seen this data! How many of you have ever looked at these type of books? They have balloon diagram after balloon diagram. It becomes abundantly clear what paleontologists mean about 'abrupt appearence'.

​

Of course Gould agrees there are transitional forms but he would also agree that there is a systematic lack of them, hence punctuated equilibrium.

​

---

JM: Well gee, it's what I do. The fossil record is not at odds with evolution despite your misinterpretation of Gould and some library books.CheersJoe Meert

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]But you're not prepared to discuss the nature of the distribution of families in the fossil record? [/QUOTE]JM: No, I am quite prepared. I am just curious as to the diversion. Why move on to this subject when we have numerous unsupported flood statements from you? Tell you what. If, and when, you provide published data in support of your reversals, stratigraphy, rapid drift model, I will be happy to discuss your misinterpretation of paleontology. Let's stick with a subject at a time. You are practicing the "Gish Gallop" whereby you present a whole lot of usupported assertions in the hopes that the details will be glossed over.CheersJoe MeertCheersJoe Meert

[QUOTE] Do you know about paleocurrents too? Do you know that the rapid currents which laid down the North American sediments were in the same direction for '100s of millions of years'.
[/B][/QUOTE]JM: Gross oversimplification on your part. You provide no specificity and no references. For a 'Phded' scientist 'working in the mainstream' you sure do play fast and loose with specifics! Is this the type of research you churn out?CheersJoe Meert