John R. Baumgardner, geophysics

Never an answer from you, just spam. You really do take Johnson's advice to not get trapped by the details to heart, don't you. I take that as a sign that you really do not even believe what you say yourself since you constantly claim better explanations but do not even try to give them. Some might even call it a little dishonest to say constantly that you can do so but to never put your money where your mouth is.

Here is a short list of the topics you are currently avoiding. Of course, in your position, I'd run from them too. You have nothing to gain by showing the weakness of your position.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/65/4.html#000048

Might as well get to it...

"The error, in a word, is uniformitarianism. This outlook assumes and asserts that the earth’s past can be correctly understood purely in terms of present-day processes acting at more or less present-day rates."

Strike one!

You have been shown over and over that this is NOT how modern geology uses uniformitarianism. Catastrophe is very much a part of modern geology. To deny this is to be dishonest. SInce his premise about geology is wrong, so are his conclusions.

"Most biologists are aware of the abrupt appearance of most of the animal phyla in the lower Cambrian rocks."

You might want to read the following. (Not that I expect you to actually do so. You might learn something and lose your ability to feel like you are making an honest arguement.)

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000969.html

You will see that one reason that there is an explosion of phyla at the time is because of how they are classified as phyla. All the way back here at some of these basal groups, you can see the origin of the defining characteristics of various phyla, so they are classified as such. The problem is that at these lowest levels, the differences between the phyla are actually slight. For instance there are nematodes in which the mouth points one way and they are a different phyla than nemtodes whose mouth points in a different direction. With good reason since this is a defining characteristics of later creatures. But for these lowest fossils, it is a minor difference and a line that has been observed being crossed several times.

"In the Grand Canyon, as one example, the Tapeats Sandstone immediately above this boundary contains hydraulically transported boulders tens of feet in diameter."

Except that the evidence is most consistent wit hte boulders being the remains of a cliff which fell into the shallow, coastal water in which the Tapeats Sandstone was deposited. Ooops.

"The ubiquitous presence of crossbeds in sandstones, and even limestones, in Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and even Cenozoic rocks is strong testimony for high energy water transport of these sediments."

He does not tell you that these same layers also contain WIND DEPOSITED crossbeds, does he? That did not happen under a great flood of water!

"Furthermore, it has been assumed that the laws of nature are time invariant and that the decay rates we measure today have been constant since the beginning of the cosmos—a view, of course, dictated by materialist and uniformitarian belief. "

Not just assumed...Demonstrated by looking at nuclear processes in the distant past by looking at these processes in the far reaches of the universe.

"One clear example of this conflict concerns the retention of helium produced by nuclear decay of uranium in small zircon crystals commonly found in granite. "

First, if all that decay happened recently, where did the heat go?

Second, are you not every going to respond to the criticism of these claims from the last time you spammed them on us?

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/69.html#000009

"However, even if we make that suspect assumption and consider the current rate of sodium increase in the oceans versus the present ocean sodium content."

Sodium is at equilibrium and cannot be used to judge age. AIG had to change the value of one of their sources by a factor of 35 and leave out many important factors to make their case. When the correction is applied, they have no case.

"The cosmological principle is the assumption that the cosmos has no edge or boundary or center and, in a broad-brush sense, is the same in every place and in every direction."

Except that they do not follow relativity properly. YOu have been told the flaws before and continue to post it though you cannot defend it factually.

Light falling into such a well would be BLUE shifted, not red!

"In regard to the timing of cosmic inflation, this alternative cosmology has inflation after stars and galaxies form. It is noteworthy that recently two astrophysics groups studying high-redshift type Ia supernovae both concluded that cosmic expansion is greater now than when these stars exploded. The article in the June 1998 issue of Physics Today describes these 'astonishing' results which 'have caused quite a stir' in the astrophysics community.21 The story amazingly ascribes the cause to 'some ethereal agency.'"

And the results of the finding of increased speed of expansion have absolutely no bearing on the proposal they are advancing. But in typical YE fashion they accept credit for observations that are against them.

 

I’m sure there are some you would fear debating publicly on the YEC side, aren’t there? Or do you claim to have all the answers?

But of course you fail to mention that it is the fundamental underpinning of geologic thought beginning with Lyell, and is only recently, since say, the 1950s or so, been shown to be so devoid of merit that a return to catastrophy, but numerous and local in scale, is warranted to encompass the observational data. How do you explain the cold spots in the mantle with regard to plate tectonics? You are aware of Baumgadener’s tectonics model named Terra aren’t you?

Not quite a scientific answer. But then you have schooled me on one of my articles, for which I am thankful.

In evolutionary terms, in flood deposition terms they settled out first.

What about it makes it consistent with cliff erosion? Also, what about the red limestone and mass extinction of millions of nautiloids laid down with orientation consistent with flow deposition? I already know the counter, but just curious if you do.

And the evidence for wind erosion is? And don’t spam me, or point me to twelve articles, just tell me. Are you talking about the footprints?

But you say his cosmological comments are irrelevant later. This seems inconsistent on your part.

You have evidence that the earth’s structure could not support the heat dissipation. May I ask you to present this idea succinctly?

Such is the case with science. AIG is not perfect, and secular science isn’t either.

Point me to this.

Do you understand the implications of Humphrey’s cosmological model on the age of the earth? You also realize that cosmology is a very speculative science, and that the Big Bang model is not consistent with relativity unless you assume 99% of the universe is not visible. Why do you not offer this for perspective?

 

"I’m sure there are some you would fear debating publicly on the YEC side, aren’t there? Or do you claim to have all the answers?"

Oh, of course. I like discussing these things but I am no expert at any of this. If you wish to talk about gasifying coal in a transport gasifier, I' your man. But not only do I not have all of the answers, I learn new things with every new topic and some old ones. So against those who make this their life's work, I would be at a disadvantage. Furthermore, if you were to include oral debate, there would be a wider field of those I would not want to mess with simply because of the nature of the debate.

"But of course you fail to mention that it is the fundamental underpinning of geologic thought beginning with Lyell, and is only recently, since say, the 1950s or so, been shown to be so devoid of merit that a return to catastrophy, but numerous and local in scale, is warranted to encompass the observational data. How do you explain the cold spots in the mantle with regard to plate tectonics? You are aware of Baumgadener’s tectonics model named Terra aren’t you?"

A few different topics. First, there has been a long struggle in geology between gradual and catastrophic causes. As early as the late 18th century, scientists such as Buffon and Fourier were advocating the role of catastrophic processes. I also believe the debate may have been settled more quickly than you think. I found a history of the debate in which it is stated that "by mid-century, on the eve of the publication of The Origin of Species (1859) the modified catastrophist view generally was the more favoured of the two theories, not least of all because catastrophism had adapted itself to theories of progression over geological time." [ http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/darwin/sect2.htm ] The data that has been collected since then has led geologists to continue to refine their theories, including in some major ways, but the purely gradual ideas of Lyell or Hutton have long since been abandoned.

Second, I do not see the problems with the cold spots in the mantle. Seismic Tomography has shown that the cold spots are generally in the center of inactive continents while the hot spots are in active regions such as subduction zones, midocean ridges and in known hot spots such as Hawaii. Here is one press release [http://www.ucsc.edu/news_events/press_releases/archive/93-94/04-94/040594-Seismic_tomography_.html ] to back up my claims.

And I am aware of Baumgardner's model. The problem is that his model has a number of problems. One problem is the tremendous amount of heat that would be released. His own estimate is 10^28 joules, an amount greater than that required to boil all of the water from all of the oceans. Here is a link where is asked about this directly and does not challenge the number. [ http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp ] I think the number can be found in his paper

Baumgardner, John R., 1990a. Changes accompanying Noah's Flood. Proceedings of the second international conference on creationism, vol. II. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, pp. 35-45.

Now, in his response on the linked page he says "Indeed I do believe a significant fraction of the volume of the oceans was boiled away during the catastrophe. But since the atmosphere can hold so little moisture, the water quickly returned as cool fresh water to the ocean surface." However, this is not possible from a thermodynamic sense. When the water condensed, it would release the same amount of heat as what had been required to evaporate the water in the first place. A pound of condensing water vapor releases 1000 Btus of energy. And that water is still at the boiling point! 1000 Btus is enough energy to raise the temperature of a pound of air by 4000 degrees F. There is no way to get rid of the heat. What would happen is that as the oceans boiled, the atmosphere would be quickly heated until it was also at the boiling temperature for water. Without the water condensing, the atmosphere would have quickly become almost entirely water vapor. Anything on the surface, Noah for instance, would have been roasted by temperatures of at least 212 F while being suffocated by an atmosphere that was essentially all water vapor. There just is not a reasonable method for ridding the planet of that kind of heat flux.

"Not quite a scientific answer. But then you have schooled me on one of my articles, for which I am thankful."

All I can really say is to read the link. I tried to summarize it as best I could. But it is mere observation of the fossils to show that the differences between what are labeled as distinct phyla were in some cases rather small differences at the time.

"...in flood deposition terms they settled out first."

But why?

Let's go back to Baumgardner. In this paper

Baumgardner, John R. and D. W. Barnette, 1994. Patterns of ocean circulation over the continents during Noah's Flood. Proceedings of the third international conference on creationism. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, pp. 77-86.

he asserts that the velocity of the water currents during the flood would have been as much as 180 ft/sec. I will assert that this rules out the possibility of most fossils that we see having been formed by the flood. There would be little other than tiny pieces to fossilize! But that is not my main point.

The water would have been flowing. We know, from Stoke's Law, how things settle out that have been suspended in water. It mainly has to do with the size, shape and density of the objects. The rate is actually proportional to the square of the diameter, so size dominates. What this means is that in the case of the flood, that the order that things settled out should follow a pattern based on Stokes Law. So what does this mean for us?

In the case of dirt and rocks, it means that the geologic column should be sorted by size and by density to a lesser extent. Boulders on the bottom. Rocks and pebbles next. Each succeeding layer should be increasingly fine until the top layers are the finest of the silts. But this is not what we see. By the same token, the fossil record is not sorted by such features either. Animals of similar size and shape and even habitat are sorted through many differening layers. Even mmore curious is that a given layer generally only has a very narrow slice of all the known life in them. This is how we get the use of index fossils, by repeatedly seeing that the same narrow groups of organisms are always found together and at the same date when the layers can be directly dated. And there is no correlation between size or shape or body type that would account for the sorting.

"What about it makes it consistent with cliff erosion?"

It is beyond my abilities to pretend to be a geologists and explain it. My reference, however, is

Middleton LT, Elliot DK. Tonto Group; in Beus SS, Morales M. (editors) Grand Canyon Geology: New York: Oxford University Press, 1990; Chapter 6.

It goes on for several pages.

"Also, what about the red limestone and mass extinction of millions of nautiloids laid down with orientation consistent with flow deposition?"

The prescence of nautiloids and limestone layers together is found in multiple places around the world. A reference for several of these is

Gnoli, NORTHERN GONDWANAN SILURO-DEVONIAN PALAEOGEOGRAPHY ASSESSED BY CEPHALOPODS, Palaeontological Association. 14 March 2003. http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/300/palaeontologia/04-12-16/2002_2/gondwana/gondwana.pdf

They are generally described as being consistent with deposition with time. THe orientation is due to the prevailing currents. Some also show evidence of storm deposition.

"And the evidence for wind erosion is? And don’t spam me, or point me to twelve articles, just tell me. Are you talking about the footprints?"

I could not find my source for the initial response so I have used a different one.

My source is

McKee, E. D., 1979. A study of global sand seas: Ancient sandstones considered to be eolian. U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1052, Reston, VA: USGS.

There are a collection of factors which point to the crossbeds as being wind deposited. I am going to do a no-no and just copy them from someone who has already listed them out.


1. The extent and homogeneity of the sand body.

2. The tabular-planar and wedge-planar type and large scale of cross-stratification. The common high-angle deposits are interpreted as slipfaces on the lee sides of dunes, and the relatively rare low-angle cross-strata that dip toward the opposite quadrant apparently represent deposits of windward slopes.

3. Slump marks of several varieties preserved on the steeply dipping surfaces of lee-side deposits. These are distinctive of dry sand avalanching.

4. Ripple marks which are common on surfaces of high-angle crossbedding suggest eolian deposition both by their high indexes (above 15) and by their orientation with axes parallel to dip slope.

5. The local preservation of a distinctive type of rain pit. Such pits illustrate the cohesion of sand grains with added moisture and a reorientation of the crater axes with respect to bedding slopes.

6. Successions of miniature rises or steps ascending dip slopes of crossbeds.

7. The preservation in fine sand of reptile footprints and probable millipede trails with sharp definition and clear impression.

8. The consistent orientation of reptilian tracks up (not down) the steep foreset slopes.

Since McKee published, additional types of terrestrial trace fossils, paleosols, and other distinctive eolian sedimentary structures have been recognized in Coconino and related eolian strata.

Sand waves deposited in water possess very low angle cross-beds, rarely steeper than 10 degrees. Cross-bedding in eolian dunes occurs at various angles. The general range in slope of the cross-beds is from 11 to 34 degrees. The average appears to be close to 25-28 degrees. The average slope of cross-bedding does not have to be equal to 30 to 34 degrees, which is the maximum slope of dry sand, to be from a sand dune. The maximum slope of cross-bedding within the Coconino Sandstone does get as steep as 30 to 34 degrees (McKee 1979; Reineck and Singh 1980). The 30-34 degree slope is produced from sand avalanching down the lee slip face of the dune. The beds and laminae produced by wind ripple migration can form cross-bedding and lamination that has slopes up to 20 degrees within a sand dune. Given that this cross-bedding is present everywhere in the Coconino Sandstone, it greatly decreases the average slope of the cross-bedding within the Coconino Sandstone. In addition, grain-fall processes produce low, inclined lamination and beds with slopes that average between 20 to 30 degrees and range from 0 to 40 degrees. The presence of grain-fall bedding and lamination within the Coconino, not only refutes the hypotheses concerning the underwater or marine origin of the Coconino Sandstone but also again greatly decreases the average slope of the cross-bedding found in the Coconino Sandstone. Thus, it is completely reasonable that the average slope of the cross-bedding in the Coconino Sandstone is less than the average slope of dry sand -- that is 30 to 34 degrees -- because the cascading of sand down the lee side of the sand dune is not the only process producing cross-beds and laminations in dune sands (Hunter 1977).

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC365_1.html

"But you say his cosmological comments are irrelevant later. This seems inconsistent on your part."

Why exactly? I am using observations of distant processes to show that they happened at the same rate then as now? Why would a criticism of hos cosmological reference mean that I could not use any such references myself?

"You have evidence that the earth’s structure could not support the heat dissipation. May I ask you to present this idea succinctly?"

Let's do a thought experiment. The rate of radioactive heat release on the earth is 6.18 x 10^12 W/kg which works out to be .048 W/m^2. Now, if 4.5 billion years of decay are compressed into 6000 years, then the heat release rate would have been (4,500,000,000 / 6,000 =)750,000 times as high, on average, over the history of the earth. Now 750,000 X .048 W/m^2 = 26,000 W/m^2 of heat release on average over the last 6000 years. Considering that the sun provides only a few hundred W/m^2, that is a lot of excess heat to shed. Things are going to be warm.

Now the assumptions there were quite crude. A geologists from FLorida has done a much better job showing how the numbers really work out. http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/adam.htm

"Such is the case with science. AIG is not perfect, and secular science isn’t either."

True. Neither is perfect.

"Point me to this."

I cannot find the old posts. But here is a source. http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unraveling.shtml

"Do you understand the implications of Humphrey’s cosmological model on the age of the earth?"

Yes. I also understand that he is not formally trained in relativity and that as a result, there appear to have been mistakes made that invalidate his hypothesis.

"You also realize that cosmology is a very speculative science, and that the Big Bang model is not consistent with relativity unless you assume 99% of the universe is not visible. Why do you not offer this for perspective?"

Well, it is more like 95% invisible. I have discussed this in the past. Suffice it to say that in my opinion, inflation and Big Bang neuleosynthesis do good jobs of actually predicting the distribution of matter in the universe. One post on this subject of mine, that seems to have disappeared, I have been able to rescue through Google's cache.

 

Cool. I’m like you dude, there is a whole bunch of stuff to know. Nobody can know it all, and that is why it is such a hot topic. Synthesis of the cumulative knowledge of humanity on science is needed, but alas, even that is insufficient.

But back to your original refutation on Baumgardener’s point, you make him appear to be ignorant of this, which I’m sure that if you think about it, you presumed much. Uniformitarian geology only excluded small regional cataclisms in it’s earliest state, which I believe is what you are saying here. That is consistent with my understanding also. But uniformitarianism in its mature form has always included small scale catastophe. John’s point is that this is still uniformitarian, and he is right. For example, a global flood transforming the face of the Earth would be, and in fact is, excluded. Now, it is included in our theories about Mars, which is currently a dry arid world. Eventhough Earth from space appears to be in a global flood presently.

I asked John specifically about this. I asked him how significant are the cold spots beneath subduction zones. He said “very.” So, are you sure that the cold spots are under the continents and not subduction zones?

I was aware of this issue, but I hadn’t read this article. It was very good. Of course I like Wallace’s stuff very much anyway. So here we can agree, this is a potential problem for John’s sim.

I would say that those affects would be localized in nature and ameliorated by the fact that most of the stuff floated for a while before becoming waterlogged. So the blasting effects of underwater sedimentary currents may have been of little effect. I will explore this issue more in the future. Thanks for raising it.

You have oversimplified this view. There would be continuing effects as we have seen at Mt. St. Helens. John points out that there would be many things going on even up to a hundred years after the flood. The Bible says it was a year before even the waters abated. A feature like the Grand Canyon for example could have been cut by a damn breach many years after the flood. This is consistent with the lack of sediment we find at its exit point, and the formations at Mt. St. Helens.

Again, you are addressing an oversimplified model I believe. But since these ideas are not as well formed as the “fossil ages” view, I guess you can do what you like. I think it is incumbent upon YEC scientists to firm this up.

I couldn’t get your link to work. Not sure why. But I will say that the only problem with this is that Dr. Steve Austin with ICR is the only one who has done extensive research in this area, and is considered the expert. Others who have studied the issue of nautiloids defer to him as having the most extensive experience in the area. So for now, I think his research stands as a viable argument against at least that layer of the Grand Canyon being uniformitarian. The fact that this is found around the world can also be used to support the Global flood scenario. That is one of the problems with matching layered sediments in different parts of the world. They do not conclusively prove either.

The link will be sufficient next time. It was a good one and they do reference the AIG article. I personally find the AIG article more compelling. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i1/flood.asp. As I mentioned at the onset, the footprint issue was the big one they needed to address, and I think they have a viable answer. Plus they spell out that the slopes in the cross bedding are too steep to occur unless underwater. All I can see from what you posted is evo research from the 1970s that is being rebutted and refuted by later work done by Austin and others. Did I miss something here?

You were just dinging him for it, then doing it. No biggie, just giving you a hard time.

I will research this one further. I am wondering though. This link seems to be making fun of Christians. Does that ever bother you that you have to rely on sources such as this?

This is why I like you.

That is exactly what Eugenie Scott said recently, and Humphrey’s challenged her to provide proof. Thus far none has been forthcoming. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1201debate.asp

I actually have lunch regularly with the local director of RTB. In fact we are getting together Wednesday. He is a paleoclimatology with ORNL. He’s a great guy. Die hard OEC. So he accepts the time, but not evolution. We have had extensive discussions on cosmology, and I can hold my ground with him. He’s kind of like you though, iron sharpening iron and all.

I would say look at the sky, it’s 99.99%, but I’ll work with 95% if you like.

Euclidean is the prevailing view.

But even my RTB buddy admit this is speculative. Dark matter, dark energy, these are not confirmed, but theoretical requirements. My RTB buddy tried to say “yea, but we found the neutrinos.” And my counter was “but neutrino’s are massless.” Of course if they are traveling at the speed of light they must be. So his view was violating relativity.

Ok dude, enough for tonight.

 

"But back to your original refutation on Baumgardener’s point, you make him appear to be ignorant of this...

The main idea is that catastrophe has been recognized as an essential part of geology for somewhere around 1.5 centuries, more depending on how you look at it. Obviously, thoughts on specific areas have changed through the years. This is at odds with his statement that "This outlook assumes and asserts that the earth’s past can be correctly understood purely in terms of present-day processes acting at more or less present-day rates."

Now, to be fair, you and he are are bit closer to the truth on your other point. Through most of this time, I would acceptt hat most of the catastrophes that were studied were local to regional in scale. By regional I mean a large fraction of a continent, for instance. But, from what I gather, which isn't much, I would agree that geologists have only in the last few decades began to study global sized catastrophes or other worldwide, short scale events. (I qualified that statement for this reason. I think everyone would agree that a great impact such as that at the KT boundary would count as a worldwide catastrophe. But what about the series on Snowball earth periods? These were worldwide and rather short as far as geologic time goes. But were they catastrophes?)

I do not know much about the supposed flood on Mars, but it seem curious that you would be able to see evidence of such an event from a few orbiters yet all of the ground and space observations of the earth d onot yield a global flood as an obvious conclusion. Maybe you can point me to data that supports a global Mars flood.

"I asked John specifically about this. I asked him how significant are the cold spots beneath subduction zones. He said “very.” So, are you sure that the cold spots are under the continents and not subduction zones?"

Alright. I had never heard of these cold spots in subduction zones so I quit looking after finding one reference for cold spot in the middle of continents and hot spots under subduction zones. I have gone back and made a more thorough search and found more information, including "cold" slabs of rock well underneath some of the subduction zones.

However, I still cannot find anything which would cause this to be a problem. I know where you are going, I think. You are going to suggest that cold slabs underneath subduction zones are a result of very recent runaway subduction. But this is not actually the case. Heat transfer calcualations, which are not really all that hard to do, show that the time period for these slabs to come to equilibrium in temperature with the surrounding mantle is about 1,000,000,000 years. So they can stay noticably diffeent in temperature for quite a long time. He is one paper I found on the subject of these slabs. It includes the thermal equilibrium time frame.

http://www.deep-earth.org/lithgowbertellonirichards_98.pdf

C Lithgow-Bertelloni, MA Richards, The dynamics of Cenozoic and Mesozoic plate motions, Rev. Geophys, 1998.

"You have oversimplified this view. There would be continuing effects as we have seen at Mt. St. Helens. John points out that there would be many things going on even up to a hundred years after the flood. The Bible says it was a year before even the waters abated. A feature like the Grand Canyon for example could have been cut by a damn breach many years after the flood. This is consistent with the lack of sediment we find at its exit point, and the formations at Mt. St. Helens."

Still, much of the sediment from that first year would be settled out by the end of that first year. Even if there were ongoing effects, we should still see most of the layers deposited worldwide according to simple settling laws. There could possibly be local effects that go atop these layers, but there should be a huge amount of material segregated by settling rates.

"Again, you are addressing an oversimplified model I believe. But since these ideas are not as well formed as the “fossil ages” view, I guess you can do what you like. I think it is incumbent upon YEC scientists to firm this up."

I agree. YEers have asserted for a while that sorting by the flood could explain the arrangement of fossils. The problem is that the observed arrangement does not appear to be amenable to any known sorting mechanisms.

"I couldn’t get your link to work. Not sure why. But I will say that the only problem with this is that Dr. Steve Austin with ICR is the only one who has done extensive research in this area, and is considered the expert. Others who have studied the issue of nautiloids defer to him as having the most extensive experience in the area. So for now, I think his research stands as a viable argument against at least that layer of the Grand Canyon being uniformitarian. The fact that this is found around the world can also be used to support the Global flood scenario. That is one of the problems with matching layered sediments in different parts of the world. They do not conclusively prove either."

Sorry about the broken link. It quick working for me today, also. Here is another.

http://www.paleo.erdw.ethz.ch/2002_2/gondwana/gondwana.pdf

There is a website that you might find very useful, It is one of the Google sites. http://scholar.google.com/ It allows you to search on keywords, article titles, authors, dates, journals and so on. I merely headed over there and search on the paper title again and found a link that worked.

There are others who have studied the nautiloid deposits. And again, one problem that you run into is that the deposits are only during a particular period of time when these things were common and they are only on the shores of the old Gondwana supercontinent. Or at least that is my conclusion from limited reading. I don't think that most YEers accept Gondwana as a real previous arrangement of the continents so that would mean a very unusual distribution for a flood model. Some accept Pangea but only because that is hard to dispute even if you just take a simple look at a world map.

But this leads to another problem for his model. To quote him from the original post. "But most are unaware that the Precambrian-Cambrian boundary also represents a nearly global stratigraphic unconformity marked by intense catastrophism. In the Grand Canyon, as one example, the Tapeats Sandstone immediately above this boundary contains hydraulically transported boulders tens of feet in diameter."

Paleomagnetic data shows that the continents were not in the Pangean configuration at the time of this boundary between the precambrian and the Cambrian. Since his model is dependenant upon this, his model is at odds with a fairly simple observation from geology. Pangea came much, much later.

"Plus they spell out that the slopes in the cross bedding are too steep to occur unless underwater."

It is the other way around.

Reineck, H.-E. and I. B. Singh, 1980. Depositional Sedimentary Environments, 2nd ed. Berlin: Spinger-Verlag.

Deposits in water are rarely over 10 degrees in slope. Deposits from wind fall into the range of 11 - 34 degrees with an average of around 27. The observed angle of 25 degrees falls squarely in with that expected for wind and well outside that expected for water.

"That is exactly what Eugenie Scott said recently, and Humphrey’s challenged her to provide proof. Thus far none has been forthcoming. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1201debate.asp "

The burden of proof would be on Humprey's to show that he does have sufficient training in relativity to make such claims. The link I provided gives some of the technical problems.

"But even my RTB buddy admit this is speculative. Dark matter, dark energy, these are not confirmed, but theoretical requirements. My RTB buddy tried to say “yea, but we found the neutrinos.” And my counter was “but neutrino’s are massless.” Of course if they are traveling at the speed of light they must be. So his view was violating relativity."

I'll start at the end. Neutrinos were found to have a small but non-zero mass back in 1998.

Dark matter is readily observable by its effects. First, if we look at a spiral galaxy, add up all the visible matter and then measure the rotational velocities of the galaxy, we find that there is not enough mass to explain the motion according to the laws of how things orbit. This implies that there is a mass of unseen matter. Reconciling the visible matter with the observed rotation rates tell us how much dark matter is in the galaxy. Second, we can look at clusters of galaxies and also add up all the visible matter. Then we use some method of checking the actual mass. Perhaps another galaxy lies behind the cluster and has its light bent when passing the cluster as a gravitational lens. Or you look at the orbital velocities of the galaxies relative to one another. The measured mass is different than what can be observed, again telling us how much dark matter is present. Third, by looking at the details of the Cosmic Microwave Background, we can directly measure how much dark matter is present by its effects. These three different methods all give consistent results of about 5 times as much dark matter as ordinary matter.

There are other ways. Sometimes a galaxy will form a gravitational lens of the type known as an Einstein Ring. These allow the mass to be determined directly.

There has also been methods to bound the amount of dark energy. For instance, a 1998 study by Falco, Kochanek and Munoz of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics measured dark energy at 62% of the mass of the universe using a method involving multiple quasar gravitational lenses. There are also other measurments of dark energy flowing in. The recent WMAP survey of the CMB placed values for many such variable and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey has also measured the amount of dark energy. Here is an article. http://www.spacedaily.com/news/darkmatter-03i.html

 

I would presume that he did not mean this to be as sweeping as you have stated. With that said, do you believe the geologic layers were deposit gradually, or over eons of time?

You are being fair here. Thank you. Worldwide catastrophe is a frontier of science.

The huge canyons on Mars is what is driving this viewpoint. To be perfectly fair about it, at least some of the canyons are much larger than Grand Canyon. But it is still fair to say that a global flood appears more feasible here on Earth given the massive amount of water, as is apparent from space photos, and the plate tectonics engine that could reconfigure the planetary crust in a way to facilitate it. Plus, if the oceans were gone, Earth would appear to be much more geologically affected by water from space than Mars. I found this link. It has quite a few science magazine quotes (http://www3.telus.net/csabc/MarsFlood.html). Here is my web article (http://www.learnthebible.org/c_s_global_flood_on_mars_but_not_earth.htm). I have quite a few links at the bottom.

I’ve not known much about it for very long either, and that is why I probed John when I had the opportunity. Evidently this was discovered in the 1970s through seismological tomography and it was the primary impetus for his education and life’s work, so he knows a bit about it. He saw this early on as being a potential avenue for an explanatory mechanism of flood geology. The story is that after he got saved he recognized this and pursued his education and line of work with this in mind. As I understand it, Terra, his plate tectonics computer simulation, is considered one of the best in the world. He can run it in inches per century or meters per second. John contends that if they were subducting inches per century, the gradual introduction into progressively hotter mantle regions would melt it pretty much completely. At least from his perspective, the only thing that makes sense is for this to have been plunged in there fast and recently. Here is John’s website, just in case you have not seen it (http://www.globalflood.org/). So there is the incongruity that must be reconciled, massive chunks of oceanic plate stuck I the mantle under subduction zones, but a catastrophic model with heat dissipation issues. If the guy from your link (who was UC grad like John) is right about remelting then we’ve got the answer. I am unconvinced about this, and I would presume many ICR and AIG geologists are also. But certainly the heat dissipation is an issue that must be addressed in John’s model. I don’t think it invalidates it, especially since the science on the other side is shaky too. And of course this is just one data point, and there in lies the problem with getting a cohesive view on the subject. One can take the consensus view of geologists if they like I guess.

Agreed.

I think what is needed here is a more detailed model. The naturalistic model is very detailed after 150 years of thought being directed to it. So I am not convinced that there is no “sorting mechanism”, but rather the lack of a detailed theoretical account of how progressive sorting over the flood period, along with plate tectonic shift, could give us what we have today. I am hopeful that there will be more geologists that engage in this research with an open mind to this possible line of reasoning. And this brings us to the layer issue question I asked above. Do you think the layers were laid down gradually, or by minor catastrophes? If you say the former, you would have to admit that this is much closer to the uniformitarian comment John made.

Austin with ICR claims he has done the most study, which doesn’t make him right about everything, but is does make him genuine in his discussion of the issue. He made this comment in reference to looking for help on the issue. He tracked down the only scientist who had done any notable work on the subject, and after they talked a while, the other guy said Austin had done far more research than he had. This is on the ICR video on the subject.

The depositional nature is the real issue. This has long been accepted as a uniformitarian layer, but could it be a catastrophic deposit. This could still be viewed as a catastrophic deposit without being necessarily global flood related. I think this is a clear example of the thought progression creation geologists are talking about, like the quote taken from John. In the early 1800s modern long chronology geology began briefly with a pure uniformitarian formula. This was quickly, as we have discussed, revised to include minor local and regional catastrophe. In the later half of the 20th century this has been revised to include astronomical impacts. In just the last decade we have added the idea of supervolcanos, like the one under Yellow Stone. So the trend is pretty clear, and it is a result of more scientific knowledge. Creation geologists recognize this may also be applied to geologic layers and plate tectonics, which is currently almost completely uniformitarian in nature.

I’m not sure either. But I’m glad you mention it, I will keep my antenna up. I Googled for it on the AIG and ICR websites and got many hits, but did not read them.

Believe it or not, it was a French creationist that first formally proposed the idea of Pangea and continental drift, and in a book first printed in 1859 no less (the year of Darwin’s book as you know). Here is a secular source (http://www.nps.gov/brca/geodet/geodet_puzzling.html and a creationist source (http://www.icr.org/research/as/platetectonics.html). The secular source fails to mention he was creationist. He claimed in his book that he got the idea from Genesis 1:9. He presented this idea in terms of short chronologies, but since no one was interested in short chronologies then it was dismissed. It was revived in the early 1900s in terms of long chronologies, but they still had no model to explain how it happened. Of course plate tectonics fixed that and it became the prevailing view in the 1960s.

And of course “paleomagnetic data” is intertwined with the long chronological view of geologic strata, and thus subject circularity.

 

My statement “Plus they spell out that the slopes in the cross bedding are too steep to occur unless underwater.” is incorrect as you have pointed out. In fact, they said just the opposite, that the average slope was not steep enough. It also falls right in the range given in your reference, which is more consistent with wind dunes. However, they do point out that there is the streaky appearance in the deposits (technically called parting lineation) which is never found in wind dunes, but “commonly formed on sand surfaces during brief erosional bursts beneath fast-flowing water.” In fact, they go into detail about how these deposits could be sand waves. They point to detailed empirical knowledge in this area involving water depth, velocity, and sustained directional flow needed to create such a feature. Sustained directional water flow of this magnitude is analogous to tsunami effects we see today, just on a much larger scale. This was further corroborated by the fossil footprints that have been shown to be consistent with under water creation by the distinct, detailed impressions left, and by the orientation of the depression which indicates resistance consistent with fighting a strong current. So I would say the AIG article makes a strong case for catastrophic deposition. But I’m sure that will be a tough one to sell since that deposit is twice the size of state of Colorado in coverage area, and 315 feet thick on average, totaling 10,000 cubic miles of sand. With the exacting calculations we have on under water formations like this, it would clearly indicate a catastrophe at least continental in scale, if not hemispherical or global. So this would be a big paradigm shift.

Not when she makes specific claims about violated constants. The burden is on her to support her allegations. Plus, “sufficient training” is a little ambiguous. He has a Ph.D. in physics, so I think that is about as sufficient as it gets. If you study this one out I think you will find she is trying to discredit him, but got a little overzealous with the facts.

Not quite, they found what they think is “evidence for” neutrinos having mass. It is called the “theory of neutrino mass.” There are many good sites out there on the subject. Now I’m not real freaked out if they do, but to say you have found a sizable percentage of dark matter, when this is theoretical that they even have mass, is stretching it a bit, especially since the neutrino saturation in the cosmos would also be theoretical. Although you didn’t mention it, I am assuming you agree with me that neutrinos having mass and traveling light speed are incompatible with relativity. One must go. This is a clear example of a conflict with relativity, or a “violated constant” as Eugenie would put it. It is one that can be resolved, but a conflict none the less.

This is good scientific investigation.

Agreed, or something completely different we have not thought of yet.

I think this is mostly encapsulated in your first point. It is all about mass, rotational velocities, and the velocity differentials between inner and outer galactic regions, and the diffs between galaxies. This is really exciting science.

Our latest map shows detailed differentials, but the scale of the differential is very small, and the real debate lies in whether or not this small differential can be used in a decisive explanatory defense of the distribution of matter in the cosmos. I’m not saying that it cannot be used that way though. I love reading about this stuff, but I do not get as enamored with it as I did in my youth. I try to keep a critical eye out on these things. The research is good, but the interpretative framework could be all wrong. Of course this is the path to truth in science, and is applicable whether you are a naturalist or not. All the significant leaps forward in science are made when people take an incongruity and an accepted paradigm, and think out of the box. To do this, one must first truly understand the limitations of their knowledge, and where there may be philosophical bias prevailing. This bias is embodied in it’s extremes as excessive naturalism or excessive theism. Obviously there are things that work autonomously, like living creatures with nanotech based cells. So to assign “god-did-it” in the sense that every action or movement that occurs is a mystery is unrealistic. By the same token, there are some things in science that are defying naturalistic explanations, and further research seems to indicate causative implications well beyond naturalism, like nanotech in the cells. Now some would caution that we should wait for science to explain them naturally, however long that may be, and others would say that we should just recognize we have hit something that may defy naturalistic explanation. Either way I believe investigation should go on, but viewpoint exclusion should not. What would it hurt if the most perplexing scientific problems of our day were laid open for all to see, regardless of their philosophical ramifications? I think that is something that must be recognized, that there is a push to hide these incongruities in science from the general populace. This is not a conspiracy, just a prevailing fear among naturalists, who have been dominant in scientific thought for 150 years, that modern scientific investigation is leading us away from pure naturalism in many areas. At the very least, and open and honest discourse about this will not hurt anything, unless of course you (not you personally) are someone who is afraid people will look to God and possibly the Bible for answers, rather than waiting on science.

These three different methods all give consistent results of about 5 times as much dark matter as ordinary matter.[/quote]

I’m not against the existence of dark matter, but just find it unsettling how theory is built upon theory is built upon theory, and some people talk about this like it is fact. I’m saying this in reference to naturalism as a view on cosmology as a whole. That is curious to me, that is all. I personally like cosmology. It is probably my favorite subject, but dark matter does not address the most perplexing questions on the origin of matter, and the fine tuning of constants, laws, and properties of matter. I would go on to assert that the organization of all the matter in the universe through stellar evolution is weakly supported, and not well developed. I can see us easily being wrong about all naturalistic views on origins, which is why these assumptions and predictions are not enough for me to put my faith in this theoretical science above what I see as a clear teaching in scripture. I’m not saying this to evoke a defensive response out of you, because I know you see things differently. But I do think Humphrey’s is making a good and honest attempt at reconciling these two things, and I hope he inspires a whole generation of thinkers like him. From my perspective most of science is devoid of this viewpoint, so at the very least the debate will raise the energy and promote further discovery. I would also like to say that your short summary of why dark matter is needed is one of the best I have read. You succinctly capture the essence of that thought. That is what I was talking about in another thread about people who know their subject are able to distill things simply. However, I am now somewhat curious though about what you believe. I guess my real question to you is where and at what level of involvement do you place God in all this? Just curious.

 

"I would presume that he did not mean this to be as sweeping as you have stated. With that said, do you believe the geologic layers were deposit gradually, or over eons of time? "

and

"And this brings us to the layer issue question I asked above. Do you think the layers were laid down gradually, or by minor catastrophes? If you say the former, you would have to admit that this is much closer to the uniformitarian comment John made."

Well, I think that observation would say some of both. There are layers that were obviously laid down very slowly over very long periods of time and some that were laid down very quickly, even catastrophically.

Take for example the Green River formation. There are as many as 40,000,000 thin layers stacked directly atop one another. They alternate light and dark. The alteration between light and dark can be explained by looking at the formation of similar layers today. There are two layers per year. A light one in the summer when eater runoff is high and a darker layer in the winter when the water runoff is less. The darker layers are also thinner. (Note: Typically each pair of light and dark layers are counted as a single layer meaning up to 20,000,000 pairs of light and dark. I merely broke the pairs apart to get 40 million.))

Now, even allowing for a full year of flood deposit formation, this would meant that one, thin layer would have to be deposited about every half second. 38 pairs of light and dark per minute. I have read YE explanations for this and I still do not understand how they can claim a very thin layer extending evenly over thousands and thousands of square miles can be laid down every half second for a full year with the observed alternation between light and dark and thin and much thinner. Also difficult to explain is that there are varying layers of limestone, siltstone, marlstone, claystone and oil shale mixed in.

Cold, deep, oxygen free water also appears to have allowed for some excellent fish preservation in some of the layers, particularly the so-called 18 inch layer.

The upper layers also preserve some Presbyornis, a type of ancient shorebird, nesting sites, footprints and even well preserved birds. It would be difficult for shorebirds to be walking around and nestbuilding in the upper layers of a catastrophic flood.

"The huge canyons on Mars is what is driving this viewpoint. To be perfectly fair..."

Thank for the additional information. The problem is that even the quotes on that page make it clear that the Mars data is consistent with large, local floods and that they leave traces very similar to some known large, local floods on the earth.

"John contends that if they were subducting inches per century, the gradual introduction into progressively hotter mantle regions would melt it pretty much completely."

That is not what the heat transfer calculations show. They are not terribly hard to do. I do them periodically but in a much different context and I would not try and get all of the values right to do so for this context. But, as shown in the paper I referenced, someone who did do the calculation found that the melting time is on the order of a billion years. Even at inches per year, that is plenty of time for these large slabs to be subducted.

Can I make an unrealted suggestion here? If you will leave a space before and after web addresses that you put in your posts, they will be converted to links which are clickable. A space between the text of the link and the surrounding "()" will do.

"I think what is needed here is a more detailed model [of fossil sorting by a flood]."

I agree. My assertion is that at this time there is not one that explains observations and I am troubled by some who insist that it is explained.

"Believe it or not, it was a French creationist that first formally proposed the idea of Pangea and continental drift."

Interesting.

"And of course “paleomagnetic data” is intertwined with the long chronological view of geologic strata, and thus subject circularity."

Not necessarily.

Morris claims that the Precambrian-Cambrian boundary is the bottom or start of the flood. Now if you go around and take samples from each continent of rocks from this layer, you can check the way the magnetic field lines are arranged and find out what direction is north. From this, you can reconstruct how the continents were arranged with respect to one another. Simply, they were not in the position at this time that his model demands.

 

"However, they do point out that there is the streaky appearance in the deposits (technically called parting lineation) which is never found in wind dunes, but 'commonly formed on sand surfaces during brief erosional bursts beneath fast-flowing water.'"

A brief literature search turned up this reference in which such parting lineation was formed in wind deposited dunes.

http://jsedres.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/72/1/40

"Eolian Dune Degradation and Generation of Massive Sandstone Bodies in the Paleoproterozoic Makgabeng Formation, Waterberg Group, South Africa," Simpson et al.

With the high angles, the remains of dry avalanches, fossil raindrops, and other features clearly point to a wind origin for the dunes.

"But I’m sure that will be a tough one to sell since that deposit is twice the size of state of Colorado in coverage area, and 315 feet thick on average, totaling 10,000 cubic miles of sand."

I am curious how a catastrophe powerful enough to move 10,000 cubic miles of sand in one fail swoop could have small reptiles and millipedes leaving trace footprints on top of all this debris while underwater? Should they have not been at least killed and mostly likely pulverized by the movement of all that sand?

"Not quite, they found what they think is “evidence for” neutrinos having mass. It is called the “theory of neutrino mass.” There are many good sites out there on the subject. Now I’m not real freaked out if they do, but to say you have found a sizable percentage of dark matter, when this is theoretical that they even have mass, is stretching it a bit, especially since the neutrino saturation in the cosmos would also be theoretical. Although you didn’t mention it, I am assuming you agree with me that neutrinos having mass and traveling light speed are incompatible with relativity. One must go. This is a clear example of a conflict with relativity, or a “violated constant” as Eugenie would put it. It is one that can be resolved, but a conflict none the less."

Yes, if neutrinos have mass, they must travel at less than the speed of light. I do not know if anyone has ever bothered to determine accurately if they travel at the speed of light or just close to it. That they oscillate between forms is pretty good evidence that they have some mass. This is not really important to our discussion since neutrinos are not thought to contribute a significant amount to the dark matter. The leading candidates for that are one of the supersymmetric partners. IIRC, the leading candidates are the wino, the zino and the photino. These are expected to have a mass such that the newest supercollider under construction might just have the minimum energy to create them in the lab for the first time and observe them. It will be close.

"I think this is mostly encapsulated in your first point. It is all about mass, rotational velocities, and the velocity differentials between inner and outer galactic regions, and the diffs between galaxies. "

Yes the two are similar. In one it is the orbit of stars in a galaxy and in the other it is the orbit of galaxies in a cluster.

But remember, I also gave a direct way to measure mass. An Einstein ring.

"However, I am now somewhat curious though about what you believe. I guess my real question to you is where and at what level of involvement do you place God in all this? Just curious."

I am not sure. My guess would be that God set up the laws of the universe in such a way that they could be used to carry out His will but that the specific results likely require some specific involvement.

I think that quantum mechanics destroys the old notion of a deist God who would up the universe and let it go without any involvement. In a classical physics world, if you knew the exact conditions of every bit of matter and energy at some moment, you could predict everything about the past and future. Not so with the probabilities of QM. Even with the laws of the universe precisely set by God at the beginning, there would be a requirement for intervention along the way.

I would like to relate a story from my childhood here. I remember one dya our preacher was discussing the crossing of the Jordan River. He pointed out that the river is subject to great landslides which completely block the flow of the river. He speculated that his personal believe was that God arranged for one of these landslides just as it was needed for the crossing.

I think this fits in with what we normally experience with God. If you are having money problems and pray for help, if God elects to provide the assitance do you expect to find a pile of money on the kitchen table or something more subtle, say a raise or a new job or an unexpected class action settlement? Is it any less an answered prayer that He chose to be indirect? Would it be any less miraculous for God to cause a landslide to block the river right as His people needed it? I think the conclusion from this is that God is involved but so intimately that it becomes nearly impossible to distinuish where His laws take care of His will and where He must intervene to direct the action. Obviously there are exceptions where the intervention is undeniable.

[ June 24, 2005, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: UTEOTW ]

 

That is the prevailing consensus view among geologists today.

This is a very famous area of contention in the discussion.

Yes, that is my understanding also.

This is the essence of the uniformitarian view regarding the Green River formation.

Certainly a prudent exposition in the uniformitarian framework.

This is where you seem to misunderstand the YE framework. Varves like this result from the physics of plume flows in catastrophic geology. The whole deposit would be created in one or multiple large events.

Hopefully I can help with this. As I understand it, it is not about this process you mention, but about the particle lamination physics of plumes that is being put forth. Mt. St. Helens being a recent example, although not directly analogous with Green River.

Creationist suspicions about the validity of the varve interpretation were confirmed in a study by two geologists published in 1988. Near Kemmerer in Wyoming the Green River Formation contains two volcanic ash (tuff) layers, each about two to three centimetres thick.

A volcanic ash layer is an example of what geologists call an ‘event horizon’, because it is laid down essentially instantaneously by a single event, in this case a volcanic eruption. The two ash layers are separated by between 8.3 and 22.6 centimetres of shale layers.

If the standard interpretation is correct, then the number of shale layers between the ash layers should be the same throughout the Green River basin, since the number of years between the two eruptions would be the same.

However, the geologists found that the number of shale layers between the ash beds varied from 1160 to 1568, with the number of layers increasing by up to 35% from the basin centre to the basin margin! The investigators concluded that this was inconsistent with the idea of seasonal ‘varve’ deposition in a stagnant lake.

Well-preserved fossils of both fish and birds are abundant and widespread throughout the sediments. Experiments by scientists from the Chicago Natural History Museum have shown that fish carcasses lowered on to the muddy bottom of a marsh decay quite rapidly, even in oxygen-poor conditions. In these experiments, fish were placed in wire cages to protect them from scavengers, yet after only six-and-a-half days all the flesh had decayed and even the bones had become disconnected.

The Presbyornis fossils are also problematic for the varve view. Birds have hollow bones that tend not to preserve well in the fossil record. How were these bird bones protected from scavenging and decay for thousands of years until a sufficient number of the fine annual layers had built up to bury them? ‘Enormous concentrations’ of bird bones are a good indication that something is seriously wrong with the idea of slow accumulation. As you can see, such fossils do support the notion of rapid burial.

Like the Grand Canyon?

I think we can tentatively agree at this point that both sides have issues. Catastrophic geology more readily explains the large cold spots, but has a heat dissipation problem. The uniformitarian view solves the heat dissipation issue, but it does have a heat sync problem with the subducted portions of mantle. Of course you have pointed to research you believe answers the latter, but of course I still believe that this answer is not a sufficient counter. From my view a gradual subduction, like the current rate of inches per century, would heat up and melt almost immediately, leaving me skeptical of the evidence you presented. What is interesting is that there seems to be a thermodynamic issue either way that must be addressed to form an intellectually satisfying view of the observational data. If I were on the OE side I would be looking more toward multiple small scale rapid shifts as an explanatory mechanism. The OE view of tectonics may be a little too uniformitarian at present for its own good. At the very least we can agree to disagree on this point. We have discussed it rather thoroughly.

Sorry about that. I usually do but noticed right after I posted it that I had forgotten.

I understand. But notice I said “detailed” model. I believe YE has a very good explanatory model, but just needs the kind of attention (150 years of focused research) afforded to the current OE view. YE folks are troubled by the presentation of the OE view uncritically, and very little research geared toward OE model falsification. You and I can both agree that the battling of these two viewpoints will thresh out the problems and inconsistencies in both arenas. Good science is accomplished when both perspectives are present, contrary to popular opinion.

Assuming that:

1) Initial magnetization parallels the ancient field
2) Geomagnetic poles have always coincided with the geographic poles
3) Pole movements (including but not limited to reversals) couldn’t happen rapidly coinciding with catastrophic tectonics
4) Geomagnetism has always been consistently dipolar
5) Paleomagnetic samples are isotropic, homogeneous, and have no secondary magnetizations

……and keeping in mind that no longitudinal information can be gleaned from symmetric dipole magnetism, just latitudinal, severely hindering accurate global positioning, you could apply a time element to continental reconstruction. But I would contend that this conclusion would be very speculative with the assumptions of age still making you subject to circularity. At the very least you cannot assert that paleomagnetism is definitive proof of long chronologies in continental reconstruction models.

 

It says they are rare and only at the top of the feature being discussed. Note that my reference was to parting lineation within the deposit. So your example is in the deposit in the sense of being a part of it, but not “in” in the sense of being within the deposit.

The high angles and avalanches are addressed in prior posts, but I have not seen the evidence for fossil raindrops. I will look at it if you provide a reference.

To your point mass extermination, and even extinction is prevalent in geologic strata, and in many cases the fossils are all mixed up and separated, which is incongruous with gradual laminar deposition. In the case of the Coconino sandstone the defined appearance of the print is a least consistent with being created in water with the organism resisting a flow, which is the primary point of contention thus far. Once that point has been ceded then the mode of fossilization of the print can be discussed since the preservation of the print is linked with the depositional mechanism. I also think it is reasonable to contend that there must have been multiple instances of sand flow, but over a short period of time, and not “one fail swoop” as you alluded. This would probably be true in a major or minor catastrophic view of the feature.

I would agree this is not a big issue of contention between us. I would say that it has been claimed that the neutrino mass is a significant amount of dark matter ( http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2001/06/19/MN138309.DTL ). This view may be changing as of late, all of which is highly speculative at this point anyway. But in general, I do not see dark matter or dark energy to be a problem for the creationist view. I only point it out in my presentations to illustrate how little we know about the universe, and why it is quite foolish and arrogant to assume we know how it came into being. Think of it, 95% (to possibly 99%) of the universe is hidden to us and we are just realizing that. What a revelation!! We also cannot explain the origin of matter/energy, the origin of the forces and constants, or even the origin of the order of cosmic matter. This is important for the layperson to know since some people believe science has fully explained cosmic origins. Dark matter and dark energy are akin to our discovery in the 1920s that our universe was larger than our own galaxy. We have much to learn in these areas, and may very well be (and probably are) completely wrong about a great many things at this point in our science.

I misunderstood your point. You’ve got me straight now. Again, you did a good job summarizing this. Thanks.

We agree here.

Interesting. I don’t think I have heard that before. I would think that a counter to this would be that quantum uncertainty could be construed as presently undefined behavior, as Einstein did, and therefore awaiting a systematizing answer in string theory or something else. Whatever the case, it is interesting to ponder.

I think we can both agree that large miraculous interventions by God that defy His laws and constants are the exception, not the rule, at least as far as we know. I tend to think that the parting of the Red Sea was entirely miraculous though, since it was intended as a sign like raising the dead and tongues were in the NT. I guess I was thinking more along the lines of origins when I originally posed the question. For example, I believe in a recent special creation of the heavens and the earth, and all the living creatures. Do you believe in a special creation of the cosmos, but then stellar evolution, chemical evolution, and biological evolution? Or do you attribute special intervention in these other areas too? If so, where and how much? I’m not asking you this to debate it necessarily, but just kind of curious about how you reconcile these things, so don’t expect a critical response.

 

"This is where you seem to misunderstand the YE framework. Varves like this result from the physics of plume flows in catastrophic geology. The whole deposit would be created in one or multiple large events."

OK, you'll have to help me here. I am pretty good with Google, but I cannot seem to come up with anyting on this.

Could you lead me to some supporting information on how this is supposed to have happened? It will be very important to see the results of this process in nature that resembles varves in more than a superficial manner. There are lot's of ways to get thin deposits, both quickly and slowly. I do not think that this is any news to geologists. What is needed is evidence of rapidly deposited layers that share the detailed characteristics of the Green River varves.

"Creationist suspicions about the validity of the varve interpretation were confirmed in a study by two geologists published in 1988. Near Kemmerer in Wyoming the Green River Formation contains two volcanic ash (tuff) layers, each about two to three centimetres thick."

Please provide the link if you quote.

Anyhow, if you go back and read the original paper (Buchheim Paul H., and Robert Biaggi, "Laminae Counts Within a Synchronous Oil Shale Unit: A Challenge to the "Varve Concept," article No. 18279 referenced in GSA ABSTRACTS & PROGRAMS, 1988, v. 20, no. 7, pg. 317) on this finding, you will see that the authors propose why you find thid.

The study was done in Fossil Lake, the smallest of the lakes that make up the Green River formation and which is therefore separate from the large region of deposits. The extra layers near the shore were identified as layers formed from storm runoff. Sediment washed into the lake during rainfall would precipitate near the shore before it had a chance to spread throughout the entire lake.

Your source should have at least mentioned that this finding was explained in the original work. He could then provide dissenting evidence if he wished to show that the hypothesis did not account for the observations. But he should not have hidden the proposed solution. The way it reads makes it sound like the orignal authors came to different conclusions that what they actually found.

"Experiments by scientists from the Chicago Natural History Museum have shown that fish carcasses lowered on to the muddy bottom of a marsh decay quite rapidly, even in oxygen-poor conditions"

A marsh is not a lake.

There are plenty of examples of observations of long term preservation of dead animals in conditions similar to that of the formation in question. FOr example the this (Cotton, Gerald E. et al, 1987, "Preservation of Human Tissue Immersed for Five Years in Fresh Water of Known Temperature," Journal of Forensic Sciences, 32:4:1125-1130) describes the recovery of two human bodies from the body of a car from the bottom of a fresh water lake. After five years, here is how the author described their condition.

"The Presbyornis fossils are also problematic for the varve view. Birds have hollow bones that tend not to preserve well in the fossil record. How were these bird bones protected from scavenging and decay for thousands of years until a sufficient number of the fine annual layers had built up to bury them? ‘Enormous concentrations’ of bird bones are a good indication that something is seriously wrong with the idea of slow accumulation. As you can see, such fossils do support the notion of rapid burial."

They do not support the idea of rapid burial. They are found at the top of the formation with their footprints, nesting sites and eggs located with them. There are also tracks of mammals and coprolites (fossil pooh) found thee. These things just what not be there if they were formed by rapid burial. Not at the top of the formation.

And I showed above how animals can be well preserved long enough to be fossilized in such conditions.

"Like the Grand Canyon? [regarding local or global Mars floods] "

Much of Mars is covered in mineral like olivine and pyroxene which are indications of little interaction with water. There is good evidence for local water processes on Mars but little for global processes.

"The uniformitarian view solves the heat dissipation issue, but it does have a heat sync problem with the subducted portions of mantle."

What problem would this be?

 

"Assuming that:

1) Initial magnetization parallels the ancient field"

Is there a reason that the magnetic components of the rock would not line up with the field as the rock forms?

"2) Geomagnetic poles have always coincided with the geographic poles"

It would not matter if they did not. The relative relationship of the various landmasses would remanin the same only their overall orientation with respect to the poles would change.

"3) Pole movements (including but not limited to reversals) couldn’t happen rapidly coinciding with catastrophic tectonics"

I am not sure what this would affect that would alter the conclusions.

"4) Geomagnetism has always been consistently dipolar"

I really do not know much about the dynamoes in question, but it seems to me that the strong magnetic fields would be dipolar. Our observations of other bodies in the solar system with strong magnetic fields also show them to be dipolar.

"5) Paleomagnetic samples are isotropic, homogeneous, and have no secondary magnetizations"

I don't know enough to comment.

Buthere is the essence of the problem. He claims that the landmasses of the earth were in a particular position at a particular place in time. The data from geology does not agree with his assertion. We can discuss potential problems with the way that the geologists do their work but in the end there is still not anything presented to show that the earth's landmasses were in fact in the configuration that has been asserted. Since his model depends on this and since I have yet to see data offerred to support the assertion, he has a major problem. (Several actually.)

"It says they are rare and only at the top of the feature being discussed. Note that my reference was to parting lineation within the deposit. So your example is in the deposit in the sense of being a part of it, but not “in” in the sense of being within the deposit."

I read the "rare" as describing just the "dewatering structures."

I think that the formation being in part of the formation still counts as being "in" the formation. The author also seems to indicate that two different mdoe of deposition were involved which might indicate why they were only found in part of the formation.

In any case, a reading of this abstract should lead credence to my earlier assertion that you cannot focus on a single aspect of the formation but must take the evidence as a whole. And the whole of the evidence, I showed several different characteristics, point to wind deposistion.

"...but I have not seen the evidence for fossil raindrops. I will look at it if you provide a reference."

McKee, E. D., 1979. A study of global sand seas: Ancient sandstones considered to be eolian. U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1052, Reston, VA: USGS.

" The local preservation of a distinctive type of rain pit. Such pits illustrate the cohesion of sand grains with added moisture and a reorientation of the crater axes with respect to bedding slopes."

Link provided above.

"In the case of the Coconino sandstone the defined appearance of the print is a least consistent with being created in water with the organism resisting a flow, which is the primary point of contention thus far. Once that point has been ceded then the mode of fossilization of the print can be discussed since the preservation of the print is linked with the depositional mechanism."

I do not think that the point has been ceeded.

The footprints that are claimed to be shown resisting flow are attributed to footprints made on inclided surfaces due to some specific aspects of the prints. "One of the most common observations is that the tracks have bulges or sand crescents on one side, thereby proving that they were made on inclined surfaces." - ( Lockley, M. and A. P. Hunt, 1995. Dinosaur Tracks and Other Fossil Footprints of the Western United States. New York: Columbia University Press.)

In addition, the authors also found footprints that showed the animals were moving in ways such as running and galloping, again inconsistent with animals trapped underwater resisting a flood.

The same author also examined the specific claims that you have made here.

Lockley, M. G., 1992. Comment and reply on "Fossil vertebrate footprints in the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) of northern Arizona: Evidence for underwater origin" Geology 20(7): 666-667.

"Interesting. I don’t think I have heard that before. I would think that a counter to this would be that quantum uncertainty could be construed as presently undefined behavior, as Einstein did, and therefore awaiting a systematizing answer in string theory or something else. Whatever the case, it is interesting to ponder."

Yes, just one of those things that I realized when reading about QM. You are also right that the apparent uncertainty of QM may simply be a case that there is a more fundemental theory which we do not yet understand in which the probabilities go away and which behaves somewhat "classically."

"Do you believe in a special creation of the cosmos, but then stellar evolution, chemical evolution, and biological evolution? Or do you attribute special intervention in these other areas too?"

The answer is that I do not know.

Experience shows me that the vast majority of the time, our universe goes about under the laws set up by God at creation. To me, the data shows that this has also been the case for most of the history of the universe. I would think that influence has been required to achieve the specific results but I also think that the intial creation of the universe was so perfect (the laws were designed to foster the carrying out of God's will) that the intervention was likely minimal, difficult to determine and concerned with a few specific required outcomes.