How Science Progresses -- By Overturning Old Paradigms?

quote:

---

But the REALLY big problem will be putting forward a model that manages to cram the whole lot into a year. I don't see any reason to think that there is the slightest possibility that it can be done.

---

If there is one thing I have learned, after years on these message boards, it is that the human mind can rationalize literaly ANYTHING.

I've seen some crazy stuff. Like the guy who insisted that the Deccan Traps was evidence of the Flood. Until I pointed out that he had to cram in the whole thing into a year, with the Siberian Traps as well. He shut up thenI wonder what the effect of THAT would have on the planet - the Siberian Traps is associated with a major mass extinction as it is, so the intuitive answer is that it would kill everything except maybe the hardiest bacteria.

quote:

---

I've seen some crazy stuff. Like the guy who insisted that the Deccan Traps was evidence of the Flood. Until I pointed out that he had to cram in the whole thing into a year, with the Siberian Traps as well. He shut up then

---

Our creationists here are a much hardier lot. This would present no problem to them.

quote:

---

I wonder what the effect of THAT would have on the planet - the Siberian Traps is associated with a major mass extinction as it is, so the intuitive answer is that it would kill everything except maybe the hardiest bacteria.

---

Not to mention all of the other volcanism, and numerous impacts, and the heat generated by accelerated radiodecay ... all in one year!

"Good. Show us where these surges are in the record. By the way you earlier said there were hundreds of surges. And TC has at least 27 of them in the Lamar River Fm., alone. Sounds to me like you making this up as you go..."
--Those surges which I propose in my model for the Lamar River paleoformation are not the global eustatic surges TB is speaking of, but local events.-------------------
The OYSI.Archive
-------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-21-2003]

"Or in fact all the strata since you need them to be very solid by the time the Grand Canyon gets to anything like its current depth."
--The lithification of Grand Canyon does not present a problem to a rapid formation of Grand Canyon.------------------

The lithification is CERTAINLY a barrier to a young Earth since it would take more time than you believe the planet has existed.But I'm not talking about that, but about the fact that the strata NEED to be pretty solid BEFORE you carve out the canyon. Otherwise it just falls in. And DON'T try to begin up Mt St Helens. In this case size certainly DOES matter.

"The lithification is CERTAINLY a barrier to a young Earth since it would take more time than you believe the planet has existed."
--Explain please."But I'm not talking about that, but about the fact that the strata NEED to be pretty solid BEFORE you carve out the canyon. Otherwise it just falls in. And DON'T try to begin up Mt St Helens. In this case size certainly DOES matter."
--Yes I understood this quite a while ago.--[Edit] - Maybe this topic should be taken out of the "Is it science" forum and put into the "Geology and the Great Flood" one?------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-21-2003]

quote:

---

"Good. Show us where these surges are in the record. By the way you earlier said there were hundreds of surges. And TC has at least 27 of them in the Lamar River Fm., alone. Sounds to me like you making this up as you go..."

​

--Those surges which I propose in my model for the Lamar River paleoformation are not the global eustatic surges TB is speaking of, but local events.

---

Okay, are they part of the flood or not? What is their mechanism? And I believe you wrote about a 'paleoformation' elsewhere. What the heck is that?