Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood II
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 122 of 234 (30593)
01-29-2003 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Tranquility Base
01-27-2003 7:40 PM


Dear Tranquilty Base;
quote:
This does not clear it up. Austin could publish creaitonist comments that read positively for our sceanrio. It is a matter of interpretation and ones bias can sway the 'criteria' used by either side. This stuff is fitted to belief by both sides. Of course I nevertheless believe the YEC view is a better explanation of these phenomena.
You have never explained the YEC explaination in detail for how the trees end up lined up with the supposed former soil surfaces and why the tops are missing. These points are explained by mainstream science, so how can the YEC explaination be better if it has no explaination for these details? At the time that 'Austin' took his quotes, it wasn't known if the trees had been moved or not, later findings proved that they had not. The newer evidence elimates the YEC interpitation as a possiblity. I also posted two other sites where simlar evidence is found, I have seen pictures in books on trees found like this, or do you think the pictures were faked? I suggest you find and read the references if you think the evidence has been misinterpreted, if such is the case, it should be easy to prove.
Since you are willing to relegate the 'comets from the flood' theory to the fringe, we can drop it. I do recommend you distance yourself from it, it was the craziest thing you had ever posted. However in the creationist world it seems to be widely accepted as fact. The book that defines the hydroplate theory, "In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood" (7th Edition) by Dr. Walt Brown states "the "fountains of the great deep" and the power of high-pressure water exploding into the vacuum of space launched comets throughout the solar system as the flood began." Brown's book seems to be the source of much of what you believe, but since you have wisely backed away from his comet origin theory, could you outline your position or post a link to a web site or book that publishes the theory that you are following. Brown's book for example also states that there was salty water 10 miles down in the earth's crust that was the source of the flood waters while you believe the water came from the oceans and was heat blasted into the air and maybe space? There are active creationist web sites still supporting everything from canopies to the earth is only 6,000 years old, most of which conflicts with your position, so I could really use some information on what you believe or don't.
You missed the point on this the first time so I will repost it, now watch the math this time. 'Now in Genesis 2:2 seventh day starts after the creation of man, so how can you have a 1000 year rest day and six more 1000 year days, and yet you say man is only 6,000 years old?" My point is that 1+6=7 not 6. If you accept the biblical age of man of 6,000 years, under your time theory it would still be about a 1,000 years before your second rest day which you say will start in just a few decades. In your calculations you have a math error of nearly a thousand years.
My point on Matthew 24:36-42 was that it precludes the start of the millennium being connected with the timing of the creative days since it states that only God knows the time, and this also means that there is no support for assuming a start of a second 'rest day' at that time since then the time would be known to other spirit creatures aside from God. Hence Rev 20-22 also refers to Christ's reign and does not refer to a rest day.
quote:
I would actually see the coming into the promised land as a 'shadow' picture (in the sense of Hebrews) of the ultimate rest day. . . . That's where I don't follow your logic. How do you not see 'another' day as 'another day'!? The use of 'another day' points to another sabbatical rest day. How can you possibly have the 'another day' be the same as a previous day?
Correct on the 'shadow', that was the point of the NIV footnote on Hebrews 4:8, that is the first rest day referred to, and if it had been complete there would not be a reference to another. You need to read the surrounding verses so you can see this verse in context so you can comprehend it. There are two different days referred to here in this verse, one is the figurative rest day of the Israelites entering the promised land, the second is the rest day of God which started after the creation of man and still continues on. If you read the preceding verses, or for that matter the whole book of Hebrews, Paul is stressing the superiority of Christianity over Judaism, how Christianity is the fulfilment of the prophetic fore types acted out by Judaism. In this verse Paul is showing how the rest day the Christians enter into is far superior to the Jewish rest day which was only a prophetic example of the Christian reality. On the biases of christ's sacrifice, what the Jews could only do symbolically, the Christians could actually do. The first rest day referred to here is the Jewish figurative one, the second is the real rest day of God of which there is only one mentioned. There is no support in this verse for God having two rest days, since the first day refereed to here is the figurative one, take that away and it leaves only one, 2-1=1. There is only one divine rest day.
quote:
Wm, I suggest you are clearly 'marking your own exam paper' here as well as expecting everything to neatly pop out in one go.
Actually the second or more go since we have already discussed these earlier issues more than once already, I also see you still didn't try to answer any of them. But that is OK, I know that you can't, I was just pointing that out, sort of adding up the score so far. My point is that your YEC is in conflict with the findings of science, and if it was just a matter of misinterpretation, checking the evidence itself would reveal the discrepancy and answer all the questions. I have also pursued the supposed scriptural support of YEC since while it is conceivable that there could be some twisting of the findings of science, we should see very clear support for YEC in the Bible if it was true. But so far I fail to see any support for YEC, and there are a number of passages that directly conflict with YEC interpretations of scripture. Without the support of the Bible, YEC is just another on of those crazy ideas you here about like all those conspiracy theories like how the Apollo moon missions were all supposedly faked. The people who get duped by those conspiracy theories have answers it seems for everything, no matter what evidence you may present it never convinces them, to them it just shows that they are right that the conspiracy is even bigger than they thought or shows how far the government will go to cover it up. The identifying mark of people who believe in these things, is they do so in the face of mountains of contrary evidence that they ignore as part of their belief. Without the support of evidence that mainstream science can not explain or clear cut scriptural support, YEC is in that category.
--WmScott

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-27-2003 7:40 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-29-2003 5:29 PM wmscott has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 234 (30595)
01-29-2003 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by wmscott
01-29-2003 5:00 PM


Wm
You have never explained the YEC explaination in detail for how the trees end up lined up with the supposed former soil surfaces
You haven't posted a decription of the actual evidence for this. Just claims of '27 forests'.
and why the tops are missing.
The trees on Spirit lkae also look like a neat log pile.
it wasn't known if the trees had been moved or not, later findings proved that they had not.
You continually misunderstand 'proved' for 'interperet' Wm. The extension from interperet to proved is simply a choice.
I have seen pictures in books on trees found like this, or do you think the pictures were faked?
So what do these pictures show?
could you outline your position or post a link to a web site or book that publishes the theory that you are following.
I've posted concise summaries here on severa loccasions including in your thread.
Now in Genesis 2:2 seventh day starts after the creation of man, so how can you have a 1000 year rest day and six more 1000 year days, and yet you say man is only 6,000 years old?"
Now I understand. You are quite right about that contradiction. I was speaking from my equivocal standpoint. If the 1000 year creation days is correct then man is between 7000 and 8000 years old. Quite right.
Mortality is nevertheless 6000 years old. The redemptive week (post creation day 7) has been going for approximately 6000 years.
My point on Matthew 24:36-42 was that it precludes the start of the millennium being connected with the timing of the creative days since it states that only God knows the time, and this also means that there is no support for assuming a start of a second 'rest day' at that time since then the time would be known to other spirit creatures aside from God.
What about the Scripture which tells us to not be caught unaware? Or Chrsit tellign us to watch the seasons? The only way to reconcile Matt 24 with these Scriptures is that we can know the season but not the 'day or hour'. So there is no problem with knowing the season just with knowing the 'day or hour'.
Correct on the 'shadow', that was the point of the NIV footnote on Hebrews 4:8, that is the first rest day referred to, and if it had been complete there would not be a reference to another.
There is your break down in logic in plain English. You are interpreting 'another day' as more of the same day!
There are two different days referred to here in this verse, one is the figurative rest day of the Israelites entering the promised land, the second is the rest day of God which started after the creation of man and still continues on.
I read it agian. It is clear that the entering of the promised land was not a 'day of rest' figurative or otherwise:
vs 8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day.
Maybe you need to paste an annotated version of Heb 4 here?
Paul is stressing the superiority of Christianity over Judaism, how Christianity is the fulfilment of the prophetic fore types acted out by Judaism.
Fully agreed
In this verse Paul is showing how the rest day the Christians enter into is far superior to the Jewish rest day which was only a prophetic example of the Christian reality.
Heb 4 is telling us that that coming into the promised land was not a rest day in any sense (vs 8 above).
On the biases of christ's sacrifice, what the Jews could only do symbolically, the Christians could actually do.
Agreed in general.
The first rest day referred to here is the Jewish figurative one, the second is the real rest day of God of which there is only one mentioned.
I disagree. The first day is creation day 7 and the second is 'another' one.
There is no support in this verse for God having two rest days, since the first day refereed to here is the figurative one
Really? In Heb 4 it actaully says:
4And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world. For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: "And on the seventh day God rested from all his work."
This is creation day 7. Heb 4:4 is directly quoting none other than Gen 2:2!
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-29-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by wmscott, posted 01-29-2003 5:00 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by wmscott, posted 02-05-2003 4:52 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 124 of 234 (30609)
01-29-2003 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by wmscott
01-29-2003 4:50 PM


wmscott writes:
First, thanks for fixing the bug.
Thanks for finding it!
I know you didn't make an official identification, you just offered other possibilities which is offering an alterative unofficial identification which I, to up hold my position have to refute. If you were not offering any possible alterative identifications, then I could ignore the pictures you posted at no risk to my position. So were you challenging my identification, or do you just like to post pretty pictures?
I was indicating to you by way of illustration, after failing by way of words, how ambiguous your ID was. A 4-year old could tell that your picture has a couple pointy things in it that aren't all that dissimilar from the splines in the reference photo. But your photo has only two pointy things - where are the rest? As I've already asked, how do you know how many pointy things it lost? There's really no way to know, is there? If it lost 5 pointy things, then Asterolampra Marylandica or Asteromphalus heptactis are good candidates, but if it lost more then they're not, in which case fresh water diatoms become likely candidates, don't they? And how do you know that it's even a diatom and not some other form of microscopic life?
Very sad outlook Percy, I hope most researchers adamantly object to your assessment of scientific progress.
You've misunderstood. I didn't say anything I hadn't said before, though of course I said it differently since obviously the point hadn't gotten across the previous several times I said it. I was talking about consensus, and that means to stop being a scientific hermit in Wisconsin posting messages to obscure discussion boards and instead share your evidence with those qualified to evaluate it. You're appear to be getting nothing from your participation here as you accept none of the feedback and don't believe we're assessing your evidence properly, or even giving it a fair hearing. Since you believe professional geologists would respond more favorably I therefore suggest, as I have been suggesting for a while now, that you present your evidence to them.
The only reason we're even having this exchange is because I offered to help to you with your paper by giving you feedback on where I thought your points or evidence were weak, like diatom ID, but instead of accepting the feedback and gathering more convincing evidence you instead argued that your evidence is *too* sufficient. I don't know why you're here, perhaps EvC Forum fills some emotional need for you, but it certainly isn't helping you write your paper.
Once I complete my research and am hopefully able to publish my results...
You have enough for a paper on marine diatoms in Wisconsin.
I am working towards achieving scientific consensus on my work...
That's a fine goal, but is this just words yet again? Your original goal was to submit a paper last year, but nothing happened. I'm trying to encourage you to stop arguing and get on with it.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by wmscott, posted 01-29-2003 4:50 PM wmscott has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 125 of 234 (30614)
01-29-2003 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Tranquility Base
01-29-2003 4:35 PM


quote:
Data-fitting is exactly the process of weaving a model around data. If you think I am saying that the data is being doctored then you misunderstand me. The geo-col is simply not the type of data that 'speaks for itself'.
Very well. My misunderstanding. I guess I would call what creatonists do 'forcing' the data, then.
quote:
Naively it looks either like eons or a catastrophe.
'Naively'... hmmm, good choice of words.
quote:
In detail it also looks either like eons or a catastrophe simply because of the nature of the data.
Actually, millions of catastrophes over billions of years.
quote:
We are both trying to explain the mineral compostion, fossil compostion, paelocurrents and tectonic aspects of the entire vertical span of the geo-col over the entire surface of the Earth. This is very difficult to do in a deterministic manner. It is very difficult to do anything other than tell 'just-so' stories.
Not at all. When one has evidence, it is easy to come up with valid explanations that can be tested and utilized to expand our knowledge base.
quote:
Stating that the continents have moved and the sea-floors have subducted and climate has changed is one thing. Stating that you know the rates that these processes occurred at is another.
Once again, not at all. We have very good evidence as to the rates of plate tectonic processes.
quote:
YEC Christians have both the Biblical claim of a global flood and systematic scientific evidence of rapidity of generation of the geo-col to back up our viewpoint.
Very well, but you have never explained the slow processes that we can see in the geological record. You only look at part of the puzzle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-29-2003 4:35 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-29-2003 10:44 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 126 of 234 (30617)
01-29-2003 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by wmscott
01-29-2003 4:50 PM


quote:
P: I expect that there are fresh water variants of many marine species.
W: Yes of course, that is why species identification is important. Asterolampra Marylandica is a centric diatom of which there are very few freshwater descendants, in fact the older books on diatoms say there are none. I have been unable to find any freshwater diatoms that have any resemblance to Asterolampra Marylandica , from your lack of posting on this I gather you haven't ether or wouldn't have resorted to posting pictures of algae.
Actually, yours doesn't look like A. Marylandica, either...
quote:
P: ... diatomaceous earth and diatomite, which both contain abundant diatoms are extensively mined and used for numerous purposes, which can result in them being spread over the surface of the Earth.
W: I have been waiting for the better part of a year for somebody to bring this up. A web site had the following information on diatomite mines and mining in the USA.
There are currently 12 diatomite producing facilities in the United States
All of the active diatomite mines is the U.S. are freshwater lake deposits except the marine deposit at Lompoc, California.
....
CAS – Central Authentication Service
quote:
Now, most mines of diatoms are freshwater diatoms which don't concern us since we are talking about marine diatoms.

You have not convinces us of this, wmscott. Your photos are not definitive on this point.
quote:
In the USA, only the mine at Lompoc, California mines marine diatoms and they are mining the Monterey Formation which has marine sediments from the upper Miocene to the lower Pliocene. The lower Pliocene age gives the diatoms of the Monterey formation a minimum age of probably at least 3.5 millions years. The types of diatoms found in the oceans 3.5 million years ago was considerably different from what was present at the end of the ice age. The following web site noted.
Paleontologists make use of the fact that diatom species are short-lived: every five million years or so, any particular species will disappear or yield to a new species.
Still irrelevant. You have not yet identified the species.
quote:
Based on that rate of replacement, most of the diatoms found in the Monterey Formation are extinct and are not a problem. Additionally as pointed out in the first site quoted, 70% of this material is used in filtration which means it was sintered or fused, such treatment is visible under the microscope and also fuses the diatoms into clumps too large for wind transport.
Okay, test time! What is the fallacy here?
quote:
Also as I have already pointed out, Asterolampra Marylandica is too large for wind transport any way.
First of all, untrue. Saltation has not been ruled out. Your specimens show clear damage. Besides we were not discussing eolian transport here.
quote:
P: I suggest you ask Edge or Joe Meert about possible geologists to contact about diatom identifications,
W: OK, Edge & Joe Meert, If you read this you may consider yourselves officially asked for help.
I have offered a suggestion. I'm not sure why since you studiously ignore any offerings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by wmscott, posted 01-29-2003 4:50 PM wmscott has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 234 (30619)
01-29-2003 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by edge
01-29-2003 10:26 PM


Edge
'Naively'... hmmm, good choice of words.
That is a word that theorists (like myself) like to use. We like to reproduce the data with a minimum of parameters and assumptions. We then home in on more details when necessary. That way we can link phenomenological features one by one to fundamnetal properties of the model. Theorists love ascribing that brand of naivety to their theories. My latest paper proudly describes our approach as naive in the abstract!
Not at all. When one has evidence, it is easy to come up with valid explanations that can be tested and utilized to expand our knowledge base.
As we would also say. But when we can both do this to with the same data then we must both admit that we are not coming up with unique solutions. We are data-fitting to a model. And these models have too many parameters so what we are doing is not very deterministic.
Very well, but you have never explained the slow processes that we can see in the geological record. You only look at part of the puzzle.
We understand the slow processes of geology the same way you do. Of course continets are drifting slowly today. This does not negate the possibility that this drift is the left over dregs of a 4500 year old catastrophic process.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-29-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by edge, posted 01-29-2003 10:26 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by edge, posted 01-29-2003 11:23 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 128 of 234 (30624)
01-29-2003 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Tranquility Base
01-29-2003 10:44 PM


quote:
That is a word that theorists (like myself) like to use. We like to reproduce the data with a minimum of parameters and assumptions. We then home in on more details when necessary.
Is it necessary for you to do that yet?
quote:
Not at all. When one has evidence, it is easy to come up with valid explanations that can be tested and utilized to expand our knowledge base.
As we would also say. But when we can both do this to with the same data then we must both admit that we are not coming up with unique solutions.
You are not coming up with unique solutions. Besides we are not using the same data. For instance you ignore completely radiometric dating.
quote:
Very well, but you have never explained the slow processes that we can see in the geological record. You only look at part of the puzzle.
We understand the slow processes of geology the same way you do. Of course continets are drifting slowly today.
They were also drifting slowly 60 My ago. Besides how do you accumulate the coral reefs we see in the geological record. And the evaporites. And the fossil record.
We have explanations for these things. You have a just-so story...
quote:
This does not negate the possibility that this drift is the left over dregs of a 4500 year old catastrophic process.
I repeat: we have evidence of slow drift (for instance) in the past. What do you have except, 'Well, golly, it could'a been faster,' ... And you cling to this poor excuse of a story even after you have been shown the consequences of such 'CPT.' Once again, you are compelled to simply ignore this data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-29-2003 10:44 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-29-2003 11:33 PM edge has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 234 (30626)
01-29-2003 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by edge
01-29-2003 11:23 PM


Edge
Is it necessary for you to do that yet?
Yes professional creationist geologists look at paleocurrents and 2D/3D compositional distribution to come to the conclusion that the geo-col is dominated by (i) nmarine inundation and (ii) high energy events.
You are not coming up with unique solutions. Besides we are not using the same data. For instance you ignore completely radiometric dating.
We are both coming up with solutions but they are differnt and obviously not uniqiue. We do not igore radiometric dating. We fully accept the decay patterns and ascribe them to accelerated decay which is what generates catastrophic tectonics.
They were also drifting slowly 60 My ago.
Only if you assume constant radiodecay.
Besides how do you accumulate the coral reefs we see in the geological record. And the evaporites. And the fossil record.
I've given you our just-so solutions before. You have equally big problems with paleocurrents, huge sorted beds, cyclothems etc. The evidecne for high energy events is overwhelming.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-29-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by edge, posted 01-29-2003 11:23 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by edge, posted 01-30-2003 12:14 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 139 by lpetrich, posted 02-05-2003 9:59 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 130 of 234 (30630)
01-30-2003 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Tranquility Base
01-29-2003 11:33 PM


quote:
Is it necessary for you to do that yet?
Yes professional creationist geologists look at paleocurrents and 2D/3D compositional distribution to come to the conclusion that the geo-col is dominated by (i) nmarine inundation and (ii) high energy events.
So, you don't have actual data yet to support your scenario.
quote:
You are not coming up with unique solutions. Besides we are not using the same data. For instance you ignore completely radiometric dating.
We are both coming up with solutions but they are differnt and obviously not uniqiue. We do not igore radiometric dating. We fully accept the decay patterns and ascribe them to accelerated decay which is what generates catastrophic tectonics.
Pure nonsense. You have defined away your problem with radiometric dating. You have not explained it at all. Why are there any matching dates by different methods at all? Why are there patterns that make geological sense? And, most importantly, what is your evidence for accelerated decay?
quote:
They were also drifting slowly 60 My ago.
Only if you assume constant radiodecay.
Give me a reason to not do so.
quote:
Besides how do you accumulate the coral reefs we see in the geological record. And the evaporites. And the fossil record.
I've given you our just-so solutions before. You have equally big problems with paleocurrents, ...
Nonsense. We have explained the paleocurrents. You have simply ignored the explanations.
quote:
...huge sorted beds,
Gee, I didn't know these things existed! Do you think geologists don't have an explanation? How utterly unbelievable.
quote:
....cyclothems etc.
These have been explained to you ad nauseum. I repeat: you ignore anything that does not agree with your just-so stories and mythical geology.
quote:
The evidecne for high energy events is overwhelming.
Yes, millions of them. Along with even more low energy events. All of which you prefer to ignore. Your logic is completely untenable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-29-2003 11:33 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 131 of 234 (30750)
01-30-2003 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by wmscott
01-29-2003 4:50 PM


WMScott Stated:
quote

P: ... diatomaceous earth and diatomite, which both contain abundant diatoms are extensively mined and used for numerous purposes, which can result in them being spread over the surface of the Earth.
W: I have been waiting for the better part of a year for somebody to bring this up. A web site had the following information on diatomite mines and mining in the USA.
There are currently 12 diatomite producing facilities in the United States
All of the active diatomite mines is the U.S. are freshwater lake deposits except the marine deposit at Lompoc, California.
....
CAS – Central Authentication Service

This is very faulty reasoning because the North American
mines discussed in this web page are not the only source
of diatomite. A person need only look at:
minerals.er.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/diatomite/250301.pdf
This article shows that 2,000 metric tons of diatomite were
imported from other countries. In addition, finished fertilizers
and pesticides imported from other countries would also
contain foreign diatomite in them. Thus, a person also needs
to know the composition of foreign diatomite deposits in
order to rule out a human source for your diatoms.
There is another major problem with the web page at:
CAS – Central Authentication Service
The problem is that diatomite and diatomaceous earth
are different types of sediment, as indicated in the
"Glossary of Geology" published by the American
Geological Institute. This web page only discusses the
source of diatomite, which consists of pure diatoms. It
stated nothing about the sources of diatomaceous earth,
which is a mixture of diatoms and other sediments, and
is very widely used widely in agriculture. Diatomaceous
earth is mined at different quarries then is pure diatomite.
As a result, the above web page is insufficient by itself to
rule out a human origin for any alleged "marine diatoms".
I say "alleged" the quality of pictures so far shown are, in
my opinion as a geologist who has worked with microfossils,
vastly inadequate for any identification of it. In fact, for really
accurate identification of many diatoms, a person often
needs a electron microscope because of the limited
resolution of light microscopes.
The comments about " The types of diatoms found in the
oceans 3.5 million years ago was considerably
different from what was present at the end of the
ice age." is not completely true. There are many
species and genera of diatoms that persist from
the Miocene until modern times.
For example Asterolampra Marylandica occurs in Miocene
marine sediments described at:
Core Data from the Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP), NOAA/NGDC/WDC for MGG Seafloor Series vol. 1
Go look at: "Leg : 73
Top/Bot Interval(mm): 400/ 420
Sample Age : UPPER MIOCENE
Hole: 520 Depth Top of Core(m): 310.50
Core: 14 Depth Top Sample(m) : 310.91
Sect: 1 No. Observed Fossils: 18"
and "Leg : 73
Top/Bot Interval(mm): 710/ 730
Sample Age : UPPER MIOCENE
Hole: 520 Depth Top of Core(m): 322.50
Core: 17 Depth Top Sample(m) : 324.72
Sect: 2 No. Observed Fossils: 10
and
Core Data from the Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP), NOAA/NGDC/WDC for MGG Seafloor Series vol. 1
Go look at: "Leg : 50
Top/Bot Interval(mm): 580/ 600
Sample Age : MIOCENE
Hole: 415 Depth Top of Core(m): 273.50
Core: 5 Depth Top Sample(m) : 275.59
Sect: 2 No. Observed Fossils: 20"
"ASTEROLAMPRA MARYLANDICA (ABUNDANT/)"
Yours,
Bill Birkeland.
Houston, Texas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by wmscott, posted 01-29-2003 4:50 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by edge, posted 01-30-2003 9:56 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied
 Message 136 by wmscott, posted 02-05-2003 4:55 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 132 of 234 (30779)
01-30-2003 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by wmscott
01-29-2003 4:50 PM


Hi, WmScott!
Thought I'd add a URL for diatomaceous earth for cattle feed. The really interesting information starts at the picture of the horse where it says, "More and more people are putting diatomaceous earth in their animal feed. Ever wonder why?" It goes on to suggest feeding and application rates according to livestock type:
I know you don't think so, but we're actually trying to help you. Believing that you have a ton of evidence indicating you've found diatoms deposited by the great flood, you think we're only objecting to your evidence because we don't accept your theory. At this point probably few if anyone believes you can be convinced that you’re wrong, and so we’re actually just trying to give you a picture of how others view your ideas and evidence.
You’re to be congratulated for gathering your own evidence. While I freely concede I think you're theory is completely without any merit whatsoever, I think I have a pretty objective eye for what constitutes good evidence, and your diatom pictures and accompanying argument for why they must have come from the flood appear very weak. If you think that I and the others here who just aren't persuaded are simply too biased and/or insufficiently competent then take your data and your arguments to those you think qualified and unbiased, but don't keep arguing the same data as if to exhaust our objections beneath a deluge of words.
If you insist on trying to persuade people here then it's going to have to come from better evidence, but I don't think it's possible for you do that by yourself, and I've told you why before. I accept mainstream science because its data has been gathered and analyzed repeatedly by many people. Your data has been gathered only by you and analyzed only by you. Let's compare here.
200 years of geology has turned up no evidence of a worldwide flood, but a guy in Wisconsin says he's found the evidence, shows some pictures that he claims can only be marine diatoms that could only have come from the flood, throws in some comets, simultaneous worldwide glacial collapses and release of sub-glacial water, mountains bobbing up and sea floor bobbing down, small life saved on the ark and big life through rafting, and all of this with evidence that leaves most people going, Huh?, but he argues persistently for his point of view and so we're supposed to be convinced? I don't think so.
I know you think the above characterization unfair, but it’s an accurate picture of how others see it. Whether you’re right or wrong, you have a better chance of persuading others if you understand their point of view. For instance, you could start by believing that, even though you’re sure your diatom evidence is strong, others view it as exceptionally weak. Ask yourself how you would go about fixing that. The answer that seems obvious to me is to find diatoms in better shape, and in quantities amenable to dating so you don’t have to make circular arguments that marine diatoms could only have come from the flood, and that the flood must have happened because you’ve found marine diatoms (repeat these last two phrases ad infinitum).
It would help if you could convince another Creationist, but it doesn’t look like that is going to happen. When you abandon evidence all arguments are valid. It is quite a spectacle to watch you and TB go back and forth about Biblical passages while blissfully oblivious to the ambiguity inherent in human communication and with the true evidence sitting literally beneath your feet.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by wmscott, posted 01-29-2003 4:50 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by wmscott, posted 02-05-2003 4:53 PM Percy has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 133 of 234 (30788)
01-30-2003 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Bill Birkeland
01-30-2003 3:36 PM


Bill,
Thank you for bringing your expertise into the discussion.
I hope that wmscott sees some of the weaknesses of his arguments and takes them to heart.
e

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Bill Birkeland, posted 01-30-2003 3:36 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 134 of 234 (31455)
02-05-2003 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Tranquility Base
01-29-2003 5:29 PM


Dear Tranquility Base;
quote:
So what do these pictures show?
The following pictures show fossil trees that were found rooted in the palaeosol that they grew in which is of course impossible if YEC where true.
The Fossil lycopod forest or club moss trees forest. This was the picture that I was thinking of in particular. Notice how the site has been dug down to the palaeosol layer that the trees grew in. I know you will disagree about that, but look at how the root surface or ground layer position of each tree lines up. Also notice how the tops of the trees are gone and how the trees are plained off at a common level.
How could these stumps supposedly settle in muddy YEC flood waters and end up so neatly positioned like this? Now here is the same site over a hundred years later now housed in a museum. If you doubt this evidence you could always go see it for yourself.
Here in a german museum is a fossil tree that has been removed from the palaeosol so you can see the intact roots, notice here too the top of the tree is missing which is only understandable under mainstream geology since YEC is unable to explain why this pattern is seen in fossil trees.
[Click on above image for larger view. --Admin]
quote:
Site on The Fossil Forest, west of Lulworth Cove, Dorset, southern England, is a classic geological locality with the remains and moulds of late Jurassic or early Cretaceous coniferous trees rooted in a palaeosol (ancient soil),
quote:
1.Cluster of standing fossilized trunks of coniferous trees of the Protopinaceae family, in the Petrified Forest park at Pali Alonia. The considerable frequency of fossilized tree trunks preserved standing and with their root system fully developed confirms that these were petrified in situ and not removed to the place they are found today.
I would imagine that right now you are trying to figure out how to accommodate in YEC the occurrence of fossil trees still rooted in the ground that they grew in. I have below a picture of an other tree, a living tree known as the bristlecone pine tree that you will have to consider as well.
quote:
The bristlecone pine only lives in scattered, arid mountain regions of six western states of America, but the oldest are found in the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest in the White Mountains of California. There the pines exist in an exposed, windswept, harsh environment, free of
competition from other plants and the ravages of insects and disease. The oldest bristlecones usually grow at elevations of 10,000 to 11,000 feet.
The oldest known tree is "Methuselah", which is 4,789 years old.
Blue Planet Biomes - Bristlecone Pine
Now here we have a tree that is still alive and growing that is older than the Biblical date for the flood, at the time of the flood this tree would have been about 400 years old. Clearly in the life span of this tree, a YEC type flood in which the entire surface of the earth is changed, has not occurred. Then it should also be remembered the tree ring record based on these trees with over laps in rings patterns of over a hundred years between trees, extends unbroken into the past for over 10,000 years. Now we both agree that there are many possible problems with absolute dating systems used in science, but dendrochronology is based on little more than counting the number of rings and pattern matching between trees with overlap in their time spans. I have no problem with tree ring dating, the potential problems are small and the science is simple. Under my theory of a late ice age flood, the trees survived, since the flood occurred in late fall after the ground had frozen. Under the YEC theories, you have an impossible problem. The evidence is simple and straight forward and it clearly and definitively shows that a YEC type flood has not occurred in the last 10,000 years. Pushing the YEC flood farther in the past to escape the conflict with the tree ring record will not help much, for as scientists work to extend the records ever farther into the past, that would result in pushing the YEC flood farther and farther back into the depths of time. Challenging the science behind the tree ring record is an exercise in absurdity that a number of YECs have engaged in, but basically arguing that advanced degreed researchers don't know how to count is indeed absurd. The multiple ring per year theory has also been an YEC favorite, and is equally absurd since it requires at the very least, large scale occurrence of extreme weather patterns repeated for large scales of time that no one living in those times mentioned or where effected by or shows up in any other way. YEC love to say that mainstream science misinterprets the evidence, but if YEC fails to heed the clear implications of the tree ring record, who is misinterpreting the evidence?
quote:
Now I understand. You are quite right about that contradiction. I was speaking from my equivocal standpoint. If the 1000 year creation days is correct then man is between 7000 and 8000 years old. Quite right.
Mortality is nevertheless 6000 years old. The redemptive week (post creation day 7) has been going for approximately 6000 years
By Mortality I assume you mean the first sin, so what you are saying is that Adam existed for nearly a thousand years in the garden of eden before the expulsion. The problem is that will not work ether, remember the chronology listed in the Bible, it gives Adam's age at the time he died, 930. (Genesis 5:4) Which means of course that Adam could not have been in the garden for so very long, in fact the Bible states his age at the birth of his first child as 130 years, and that birth occurred after the expulsion. So the maximum amount of time you could squeeze in here is only 130 years which is far shy of the 1000 you need to make your chronology work.
Previously I had posted- "My point on Matthew 24:36-42 was that it precludes the start of the millennium being connected with the timing of the creative days since it states that only God knows the time, and this also means that there is no support for assuming a start of a second 'rest day' at that time since then the time would be known to other spirit creatures aside from God." To which you replied.
quote:
What about the Scripture which tells us to not be caught unaware? Or Chrsit tellign us to watch the seasons? The only way to reconcile Matt 24 with these Scriptures is that we can know the season but not the 'day or hour'. So there is no problem with knowing the season just with knowing the 'day or hour'.
The term 'season' here refers to a period of time as does the term 'generation', both refer to a length of time lasting a number of years possibly even decades as were seen in the events leading up the destruction of Jerusalem which was the first or minor fulfillment of Matthew 24. Christ followers were to recognize this period of years or season of the generation by the foretold signs. Thinking that we can pin point a specific year based on chronology would be to miss the point of 'no one will know'. All the signs tell us is that we are getting closer, but they are not a numbered count down. Whether it be in the first watch. or the second, third or even the forth, we are to stay awake and keep on the watch. Now if it was possible to know the year, why are we told to stay awake? Couldn't you just set your spiritual alarm clock and sleep till then? Clearly thinking we know the time, even just the year, is self deception. It is not possible to use chronology to gain information we are not meant to have, if it were possible to so easily get around God's ability to keep a secret, it would reflect badly on our creator.
We also have to keep in mind Christ's statement that only his father knew the time, none of the other angels or even Christ himself knew. If the start of the millennium was related to the timing of the days of creation, all the angels would know the exact time, since they don't there is clearly an error in your theory. The fact that only Jehovah knew the time clearly means the chosen time was decided upon by God and doesn't relate to any chronology or other length of time periods or else it would not be a secret.
quote:
Maybe you need to paste an annotated version of Heb 4 here?
Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible
Your theory is that each creative day is 1000 years long and that the seventh day was to and ended long ago and was followed by another creative week and that we are approaching another seventh day or actually the fourteenth day according to you. The fact that there is but one literal rest day and that it is still on going is shown by Hebrews 4:3-4 "And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world. For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: "And on the seventh day God rested from all his work."" NIV These verses clearly states that God has rested since the creation and equated this rest with the seventh day, clearly showing that both are on going and have not ended. The wording is very clear, the seventh day is on going. This means that the seventh day is already over 6000 years long and shows that the earlier creative days could have each covered long spans of time as well.
As I explained earlier, Hebrews 4:8 talks about the "temporary, earthly rest gained under Joshua pointed to a rest that is spiritual and eternal." (NIV footnote on verse one) That is the other rest day, which since it is not complete, another rest day is referred to even after the Israelites entered the promised land. Paul is contrasting the figurative with the literal, he is not saying that there are two literal rest days of God. As shown by the wording in verses 3-4, there is only one rest day of God and it is on going so there is no need for another.
As a fellow Christian and believer in a literal flood, I respect your beliefs, but I disagree with some of them. I hope I have been able to show to you how YEC is in conflict with evidence found in the physical world and the spiritual world as well. This is why YEC is a minority viewpoint among Christians. The Bible is a deep book, sometimes you have to dig to get the right understanding, I would be happy to help you find it.
--Wm Scott Anderson
[This message has been edited by Admin, 02-05-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-29-2003 5:29 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Tranquility Base, posted 02-05-2003 9:46 PM wmscott has replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 135 of 234 (31456)
02-05-2003 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Percy
01-30-2003 8:29 PM


Dear Percipient;
quote:
You have enough for a paper on marine diatoms in Wisconsin. . . . Your original goal was to submit a paper last year, but nothing happened. I'm trying to encourage you to stop arguing and get on with it.
I know you are trying to help me and I do appreciate it very much and I need the outside viewpoint. I just don't agree with all of your opinions. I do share your opinion that my diatom evidence is weak which is why I haven't tried publishing a Scientific paper on it yet. I need more evidence before I can submit a paper, I know that, so I have work to do. Unfortunately this research is just a hobby and I have limited time and funds that I can devote to it, this slows and limits what I can do. But I intend to keep at it, and hopefully I will be able to gather enough evidence to produce a very solid paper someday.
I liked your characterization, that is about how I thought I would appear at the moment.
Yes I thought you would be amused by my scriptural exchange with TB. As you should remember, TB places the Bible above the physical evidence, since you never cited scripture you never had a chance of changing his mind. You can only convince a person if you use evidence that they accept.
--Wm Scott Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Percy, posted 01-30-2003 8:29 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Percy, posted 02-05-2003 6:08 PM wmscott has replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 136 of 234 (31457)
02-05-2003 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Bill Birkeland
01-30-2003 3:36 PM


Dear Bill Birkeland;
quote:
This is very faulty reasoning because the North American
mines discussed in this web page are not the only source
of diatomite. . . . 2,000 metric tons of diatomite were
imported from other countries. In addition, finished fertilizers
and pesticides imported from other countries would also
contain foreign diatomite in them. Thus, a person also needs
to know the composition of foreign diatomite deposits in
order to rule out a human source for your diatoms.
I wasn't ignoring the importation of diatom containing material, I restricted my posting to just considering the United States to keep the post a reasonable size. In general for the whole planet's production of material containing diatoms "Miocene and Pliocene age deposits that are being mined throughout the world today" which means these potential sources of contamination can be excluded by looking for more recent marine diatom species.
quote:
I say "alleged" the quality of pictures so far shown are, in
my opinion as a geologist who has worked with microfossils,
vastly inadequate for any identification of it. In fact, for really
accurate identification of many diatoms, a person often
needs a electron microscope because of the limited
resolution of light microscopes.
Happen to have one I can borrow? But seriously I am always looking to improve the quality of my results, I am less than happy with the picture quality I have been getting. Perhaps you can offer a few suggestions? Maybe some references to some good articles or books that detail the steps involved. I have also been having only limited success in tracking down the laboratory procedures for processing diatom samples. Sources for affordable supplies would be helpful as well.
quote:
The comments about " The types of diatoms found in the
oceans 3.5 million years ago was considerably
different from what was present at the end of the
ice age." is not completely true. There are many
species and genera of diatoms that persist from
the Miocene until modern times.
For example Asterolampra Marylandica occurs in Miocene
marine sediments described at:
Yes you are right, Asterolampra Marylandica dates back into the Miocene and even earlier. However in general, many of the marine diatoms in the oceans today are more recent and can be used to exclude contamination from older sources. I believe the Asterolampra Marylandica I have found is more recent due to the size of the species being to large for Wind lofting which restricts the possibility of contamination to very local sources. Any contamination needs transportation to the site to be a problem. Industrial and agricultural use of diatoms and materials containing diatoms will not have affected the site in question. But as I wish to extent my sampling to other sites that may have been exposed, it does present problems. I will ether have to be extremely selective in site selection or I will need to use only recently occurring marine diatoms. I could use a reference guide that lists the first appearance of each modern marine diatom, any recommendations?
I am very surprised that you didn't bring up the biggest possible source of contamination of marine diatoms. Don't the roads ever get icy where you live?
--Wm Scott Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Bill Birkeland, posted 01-30-2003 3:36 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024