Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion)
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 31 of 190 (153082)
10-26-2004 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by RandyB
10-26-2004 12:42 PM


Re: You have no chance of learning
Randy, Randy, Randy, don't you know by now that quoting people out of context is the modus operandi of the truly ignorant?
Leave off that nonsense while here in this forum, please. This is a place of SCIENCE not feckless jibber jabber.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by RandyB, posted 10-26-2004 12:42 PM RandyB has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 32 of 190 (153094)
10-26-2004 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by RandyB
10-26-2004 12:42 PM


Re: You have no chance of learning
quote:
"Emiliani's findings are corroborated by geologists Kennett and Shackleton, who concluded that there was a 'massive inpouring of glacial melt water into the Gulf of Mexico via the Mississippi River system. At the time of maximum inpouring of this water, surface salinities were...reduced by about ten percent."1
So sorry. Doesn't sound like a global flood. In fact, it appears that the Gulf of Mexico is still flooded. What is your point?
quote:
The Black Sea Speaks:
"Science... has found evidence for a massive deluge that may ... have inspired Noah's tale. About 7,500 years ago, a flood poured ten cubic miles of water a day--130 times more than flows over Niagara Falls - from the Mediterranean Sea into the Black Sea, abruptly turning the formerly freshwater lake into a brackish inland sea."2
"In 1993, William Ryan and Walter Pitman of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory dug up cores of sediment from the bottom of the Black sea. The cores showed that the sea's outer margins had once been dry land, indicating it had been two-thirds its present size. Furthermore, over the entire sea bottom was a thin, uniform layer of sediment that could only have been deposited during a flood. The researchers also found that within that layer saltwater mollusks appear, all from the Mediterranean and all dating
from around 7600 years ago." 2
Yes, more evidence that there is still a flood going on... in the Black Sea.
So far, you have shown nothing of significance regarding a global flood, Randy. You are wasting our time.
quote:
'Evolution is above all very uneven. Certain periods were outstandingly productive of new and verile forms which often seem to have sprung into existence from nowhere... and to have become dominant almost simultaneously over a large part of the world... How such sudden multiple creations were brought about is a task for the future to determine.'" 3,4
Sounds like evolution to me. What do the authors say? YEC or evolution? Seems like you kind of leave that part out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by RandyB, posted 10-26-2004 12:42 PM RandyB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by RandyB, posted 10-26-2004 7:06 PM edge has replied

RandyB
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 190 (153121)
10-26-2004 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by edge
10-26-2004 3:48 PM


Re: You have no chance of learning
In that case, then please don't ask me any more questions -- as I think I would be "wasting my time."
Tschuss!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by edge, posted 10-26-2004 3:48 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by edge, posted 10-26-2004 11:08 PM RandyB has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 34 of 190 (153201)
10-26-2004 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by RandyB
10-26-2004 7:06 PM


Re: You have no chance of learning
quote:
In that case, then please don't ask me any more questions...
Very well. Your inability to answer them is noted.
quote:
... -- as I think I would be "wasting my time."
The question is, can you provide ANY actual evidence, so that we do not waste any more time here.
The problem is that you have extracted your points from a much larger body of evidence, most of which you completely ignore. You talk about a single 40'tree whereas Lyell discusses 'some trees' of 40' length; and then subscribe to some conspiracy to hide evidence from us. And moreover, you say that the tree must extend through a coal bed, even though there is zero evidence for this. Your essay makes no sense at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by RandyB, posted 10-26-2004 7:06 PM RandyB has not replied

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


Message 35 of 190 (153216)
10-27-2004 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by RandyB
10-25-2004 11:44 AM


Re: Polystrate Fossils of Joggins
>I take it that you disagree with my conclusions.
What would make you think that? :-) :-) :-)
>That's OK. I don't agree with everything I read either.
>
>I am curious though as to what you think about the
>40 foot upright tree that I uncovered?
Actually, another geologist, whom I know, has been looking into that in great detail and has inquired with the geologists, who have been studying the Joggins outcrop. In the 140-160 since Dawson (1855) wrote about the Joggins locality, none of the numerous geologists, including creationists, Coffin and Rupke, have found an upright trunk anywhere near 40 feet high. The highest one that has ever been observed by them was 5.7 meters (18.5 feet high). An upright (polystrate) rooted cypress trunk about 4 meters (12 feet) high has been found buried in historic natural levee deposits by a backhoe trench along the Atchafayala River just south of Krotz Springs near Indian Bayou. This example indicates that noncatastrophic processes are quite capable of producing polystrate trees of such height.
(NOTE: According to informed sources, the report documenting this 12-foot high, 150-year old polystrate tree is in review and will available for purchase in about 3 months, more or less).
In case of the 40-foot long tree that Dawson (1855) reported, a person has to use the common sense that God gave them and a basic understanding of the English language. The quote, which Mr. Berg has on his web page, Dawson (1855) stated:
"Let us now endeavor to form an idea of the trees of this
singular genus. Imagine a tall branchless or sparsely
branching trunk, perhaps two feet in diameter, and thirty
feet in height. (One has been traced to the length of
forty feet in the roof of the Joggins main coal-seam )." 22"
The significant words in this description are "the length of forty feet in the roof of the Joggins main coal-seam". If the 40-foot length of this tree is in the "roof of the coal seam" and of the mine, Dawson's tree has to have been laying on top of the coal bed parallel to bedding, not perpendicular to it as a polystrate tree would be. Otherwise, coal mining wouldn't have exposed its full 40-foot length. That Dawson (1855) uses the word "length" instead of "height" is also a significant clue that this fossil tree wasn't upright, but rather lying prone on its side when buried. Therefore, this 40-foot tree isn't a real polystrate given that it was found lying flat on top of a coal bed.
According Mr. Berg's web page, Lyell (1881) stated:
"Wither I went to see a forest of fossil
coal-trees, the most wonderful phenomenon,
perhaps that I have seen, so upright do the
trees stand, or so perpendicular to the
strata .... trees 25 feet high, and some
have been seen of 40 feet, piercing the
beds of sandstone and terminating downwards
in the same beds, usually coal..." 23"
In this quote, the phrase "and some have been seen of 40 feet" will give any reasonable scientist a pause. The use of the passive tense in this quote from Lyell (1881) clearly indicates that Lyell (1881) **didn't personally observe** any 40 foot high polystrate tree, but rather was told by other, unnamed parties that 40 feet high trees had been seen. Other geologists and I have learned to be skeptical of second hand accounts, otherwise called "heresy", because, like either the fish that got away or was caught and eaten by the pet dog, the size of it tends to grow with the retelling. Undocumented second hand accounts by unknown parties of unknown expertise is extremely poor evidence on which to base an argument or a theory. That this second hand of a 40 foot polystrate tree was likely in error is indicated by the fact that nobody, out of the innumerable geologists, both creationist and conventional, who have visited the Joggins outcrops has reported a similar polystrate tree and documented this sighting in print. If such 40-foot trees actually exist, they are such spectacular features that someone should have seen and reported any such polystrate tree that was exposed in the Joggins outcrops within the 140 to 160 years since Dawson and Lyell did their research. During that century and half, the tallest documented polystrate tree, except possibly for the 25-foot tall polystrate tree reported by Lyell (1881), that anyone has seen was 5.7 meter (18.5 feet) high.
At best, A person can only consider the 25-foot high tree, which Lyell (1881) clearly directly observed, at best, as having any validity. As discussed in detail by Gastaldo et al. (2004), such a height can readily be explained by either subsidence of of deltaic / coastal plain deposits associated with seismic events, the regenerative growth of lycopods, or some combination of these factors. The basin, in which the Joggins sediments accumulated was a tectonically subsiding basin, which likely would have been subject to severe earthquakes. As has happened in modern earthquakes in Alaska, the liquefaction of unconsolidated coastal plain sediments could have easily caused as much as 10 to 20 feet of subsidence. Such a large large "hole" created by such subsidence would have been quite quickly filled in by sediment dumped into it by either local rivers or tidal currents preserving any upright trees sunk within it.
Also, as Gastaldo et al. (2004) noted, the fossil plants are quite different from the modern trees a person finds in modern swamps and floodplains. At the time, the plants, which occupied the local swamps and forests, were capable, as illustrated by **photographs**, i.e. figure 5 of Galstaldo et al. (2004), were capable of regenerating themselves after being partially buried as discussed in more detail by Gastaldo (1992). As a result, the partially burial of a lycopod by several feet of sediments wouldn't necessarily have killed it. Instead, the partially buried tree would form new roots just below the new land surface and continue growing upward to its former height above the new ground surface. Later on, if this tree had been partially buried again, it would form new roots just below the new land surface and grow up again to its former height relative to the new land surface. As long as the tree had time between being partially buried, it could over several episodes of partial burial produce a polystrate tree of a considerable **apparent** height. The interested lurker can find this behavior documented in Gastaldo (1992) and Gastaldo et al. (2004). There are various ways, ignored by Mr. Berg, in which really tall polystrate trees can be created by nocatastrophic processes.
References Cited:
Dawson, John W., 1855, Acadian Geology,
p. 159; See also ref. 4 p. 188.
Gastaldo, R.A. Regenerative growth in fossil
horsetails ( Calamites ) following burial by
Alluvium. Historical Biology 6(3):203-220.
Gastaldo, R.A., Stevanovic-Walls, I., and Ware,
W. N., In Situ, Erect Forests Are Evidence for
Large-Magnitude, Coseismic Base-Level Changes
within Pennsylvanian Cyclothems of the Black
Warrior Basin, USA: in Pashin, J.C., and
Gastaldo, R.A., eds., pp. 219-238. Coal-
bearing Strata: Sequence Stratigraphy,
Paleoclimate, and Tectonics: AAPG Studies in
Geology vol. 51, American Association of
Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Citation given by Mr. Berger for Lyell (1881):
"Lyell, Sir Charles, "Life of Sir Charles
Lyell," Vol. II, 1881, p. 65."
>The one that Dawson and Lyell didn't want the
>public to know about? The one that went through
>a coal seam? Or what did you think about the other
>upright tree that is shown crossing a two foot
>thick coal seam? The one that is pictured on my
>Home Page at Earth Age – The Truth About Earth's Age ?
[NOTE: I find it quite curious that catastrophists, of all types, always seem to think that they have an obligation to make at least one slanderous remark about either geologists or other conventional scientists covering up findings while discussing whatever they are discussing. :-) :-) :-) ]
So what? The Joggin polystrate trees do have roots and there is abundant evidence that refutes that a global flood deposited the strata at Joggins. Obviously, Mr. Berg practices the very uniformitarianism, which Young Earth creationists abhor in assuming that rates of peat accumulation in the prehistoric times must always have been the same as the rates of peat accumulation observed in modern environments. However, the types of plants and ecology of the Carboniferous swamps were quite different than modern swamps. Given these and other documented environmental differences, the rates at which peat locally accumulated very likely could have been quite different and much faster than seen in modern swamps. As a result, the fact a few, quite rare polystrate trees allegedly penetrate coals means nothing.
>Or what did you think of all those upright trees that
>I show that don't have any roots attached? Or the
>ones that Brown even admitted that didn't have roots
>attached: the ones that Dawson chose to ignore in his
>books?
Mr. Berg is taking a 140-160 year-old schematic figure, drawn by a fallible human, far too seriously. Unlike God, geologists are fallible beings, who make mistakes and oversimplify their drawing to the point of leaving out important details. Part of the problem is that some of roots weren't filled with sand or other sediment when the tree was buried. Thus, they are now preserved as carbonized compressions. These can be easily missed, if either the person looking for them doesn't know what they are looking for or if the outcrop is dirty and too dangerous to clean off. What Mr. Berg ignores is that later geologists have demonstrated, as an absolute fact, that the polystrate trees of Joggins do have roots. This later research completely renders Dawson's figures and text moot and meaningless as proof of anything, except that he over simplified his drawnings to the point of leaving out important details and it is a serious mistake to regard his research as infallible.
The absolute fact of matter is that the polystrate trees at Joggins, Nova Scotia, do indeed have roots attached to them. This is documented by descriptions and pictures in published articles concerning the polystrate trees at Joggins, including Gibling (1987), Hacquebard, (1987), and Ferguson (1988), Although I haven't visited the Joggins sea cliffs myself, I know at least **four** fellow geologists, who have visited these outcrops at Joggins, Nova Scotia. In the specimens, where their base had neither been eroded away nor concealed, they were able find roots attached them. If anything, my friends were completely astounded that people could so utterly blind as not to see the presence of such obvious features as these tree roots. Thousands of conventional geologists have visited the outcrops at Joggins, Nova Scotia, and I am yet to hear any of them having problems finding roots attached to the polystrate trees there. Curiously, only creationists, whose religious beliefs are offended by such evidence contradicting their pet ideas, seem to have had problems finding these roots.
References Cited:
Ferguson, L., 1988, The Fossil cliffs of Joggins. Nova
Scotia Museum, Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Gibling, M. R., 1987, A classic Carboniferous section:
Joggin, Nova Scotia. In D. C. Roy, ed., pp. 409-414.
Northeastern Section of the Geological Society of
America Centennial Field Guide vol. 5. Geological
Society of America, Boulder, Colorado.
Hacquebard, P. A., 1987, Notes for the October 10,
1987 Fieldtrip to the Joggins and Springhill
Coalfields of Nova Scotia. In Field Trip Guide:
Parrsboro and Joggins areas, Nova Scotia, Canada,
October 10, 1987. The American society of
Stratigraphic Palynologists, Dallas, Texas.
>Or what did you think of those Quotes that I have on my
>page titled "More Flood Evidences" that tell us that there
>must have been a Worldwide Flood?
Yes, I have seen the quotes in your "More Flood Evidences" on your website. It is one-side collection of quote mining from conventional scientists and wildy inaccurate, often fictional, material cited from Young Earth creationist books and articles. Given the distorted and largely fictional nature of its contents, it presents a one-sided and scientifically bankrupt point of view. In terms of the quote mining, the interested lurker can read:
1. The Quote Mine Project: Or, Lies, Damned Lies
and Quote Mines, Edited by John Pieretat:
Quote Mine Project: Examining 'Evolution Quotes' of Creationists
2. Claim CA113: Quotes from many non-creationist
authorities show that evolutionists themselves find
many various failures of evolution.
CA113: Quote mining
Some statements, i.e. " Fossils do not form on lake bottoms today; nor are they found forming on the bottom of the sea." and there being "virtually no evidence of erosion between layers" are so blatantly wrong that they stand as solid proof that the people, who made them, were functionalyl illiterate in their understanding of geology. As far as the modern formation of fossils, the interested lurker can look read "Fossil Fish", Post of the Month: September 2002 at:
The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: September 2002
The web page also includes a factually-impaired, tall-tale about a polystrate whale being found in California, which is discussed in "A Whale of a Tale" by Darby South at;
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html
and
"Polystrate Whale" by Bill Birkeland at:
http://EvC Forum: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion) -->EvC Forum: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion)
As far as a global flood goes, the interested lurker can read "Problems with a Global Flood, Second Edition" by Mark Isaak at:
Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition
>Or how about the evidence I give that goes against the
>Flooding River scenario in favor of Marine influence one
>where the ocean swept over the land? You did read that
>part of my paper didn't you? It is in Part Two. I think
>it is the Section titled: "Evidence for Marine Influences"
>or something like that.
If Mr. Berg would read what I wrote, he would find that I specifically addressed his "Evidence for Marine Influences" in my previous post at:
http://EvC Forum: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion) -->EvC Forum: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion)
If a person actually looks at the original references, they will find that Mr. Berg has completely ignored the context of the "evidence" and other data, which completely refute his ideas. In "Evidence for Marine Influences", Mr. Berg simply doesn't understand that there is nothing unusual about finding marine, brackish, and tidal sediments and fossils inlayered with alluvial and deltaic sediments within a coastal plain deposits created during glacial - interglacial cycles as the strata were deposited. Using Mr. Berg's illogic, I can equally argue that the Mississippi Delta currently being created by the Mississippi River must have been also been deposited by a global flood. His "Evidence for Marine Influences", as I discussed in my previous post fails completely as evidence for the deposition of the strata exposed at Joggins, Nova Scotia, by a global flood of any time.
What Mr. Berg doesn't tell his readers, along many other lines of evidence that refute his submarine / global flood ideas, is that fossil soils (paleosols), which can found on dry land, have been found within the sedimentary strata at Joggins. In fact, fossil calcretes, a type of soil that formeds only on land and in arid and semiarid environments, has also been found in the sedimentary sequence to which the Joggins strata belong.
More discussion of the paleosols found within the Joggin strata can be found in a previous post, "Morris's Impact Article No. 316 On Joggins Polystrate Fossils", at:
http://EvC Forum: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion) -->EvC Forum: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion)
The presence of calcretes within the strata, to which the Joggins strata belong, is documented beyond any shadow of a doubt in:
Tandon, S. K., and Giblking, M. R., 1994, Coal and
calcrete in Late Carboniferous cyclothems of Nova
Scotia: climate and sea-level changes linked. Geology.
vol. 22, pp. 755-758.
and
Tandon, S. K. & Gibling, M. R. 1997, Calcretes at
sequence boundaries in Upper Carboniferous
cyclothems of the Sydney Basin, Atlantic Canada.
Sedimentary Geology. vol. 112, pp. 43-67.
>Seriously Bill,
>You need to lighten up and maybe even (God Forbid) THANK ME
>for looking a little deeper than what others have done.
I have absolutely nothing to thank Mr. Berg for, except maybe for an excellent example of an analyses of these fossils that is so remarkably shallow that all of the other geologists, with whom I work, judged it to the work of a High School or Junior High School student. As far as the geology, paleontology, and taphonomy of the Joggins polystrate trees, his web site clearly shows Mr. Berg hasn't dug "deeper than what others have done" at all. He has a considerable number of papers to read. Mr, Berg is deluding himself quite terribly if he thinks he has done anything that is worth thanking him for, except maybe giving some well needed amusement to an office full of geologist stressed out by deadlines.
A list of some of the many citations published about the Joggins, Nova Scotia, outcrop and the polystrate trees it contains can be found in my previous post and in "Fossils of Nova Scotia: References by Site" at:
http://museum.gov.ns.ca/fossils/refs/site.htm
Also, the citations for a number of articles, of which just one geologist, Dr. R. M. Gibling, about the sedimentology of the strata exposed Joggins, Nova Scotia, can be found at:
http://meguma.earthsciences.dal.ca/...ibling/gibling.htm#mrp
>Perhaps it is just possible that the SAME OCEAN
>CURRENT THAT DEPOSITED THE MARINE SEDIMENTS IN
>THE COAL STRATA (also and Lepidodendrons and
>Sigillaria) in Tennesee and Kentucky and
>Pensylvania was the same event that also
>deposted the strata in Nova Scotia??? Perhaps
>even the Grand Canyon as well.
The fact of the matter is that there is now enough data, observations, and evidence to completely and utterly refute the above idea and consign it the same realm of antiquated and long disproved concepts such as the principles of the Flat Earth Society, Geocentricism, and phlogiston
>I also predict that in the next few years that there
>will be other papers published that support the same
>conclusions that I have come to.
I predict from past attempts that these papers will consist of arguments, logic, and research so badly flawed to the point of being regarded by conventional geologists as boring catastrophist or religious fiction. Given the intense desire of people to support specific, very narrow-minded interpretations of religious text, there will always be people willing write apologetics, in which science and logic are twisted, misrepresented, and, even falsified to "prove" what they believe to be one and only "Truth". However, I suspect that none of these publications will proved to be anything more than extremely boring fiction. However, I am always open to being surprised by some unexpectedly brilliant article.
>In fact, it is my hope that Geology students will
>look into this again for themselves and even
>challenge their Professors (especially if it turns
>out -- as I strongly suspect -- that they are wrong).
>
>I also hope that is OK with you. Or is there only
>one conclusion that you will accept?
>
>Good day, and Bless you all for searching out the truth.
It is not a matter of accepting one specific "conclusion". The matter is that truth cannot be found using falsehoods about fossil polystrate trees lacking roots, fictional stories about polystrate whales in California, and an utter ignorance of what other people, who have examined the outcrops at Joggins, have written and illustrated about them. If Mr. Berg is seeking the truth, I know he is not going to find it with the lies, falsehoods, and fiction that he mistakes for knowledge and has posted on his web site. He is not going to find the truth by discarding evidence, i.e. paleosols and incised valleys, simply because it completely refutes his pet ideas, instead of incorporating it into his models. If Mr. Berg wants to be taken seriously, he needs to incorporate into his models well documented facts, i.e. the ubiquitous presence of roots on the polystrate trees of Joggins and Axel Heiberg Island, and get beyond depending on literature that is now about a century and a half old. He needs to realize that we all current live the year 2004, not the 1860s.
Best regards,
Bill
Houston.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by RandyB, posted 10-25-2004 11:44 AM RandyB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by roxrkool, posted 10-27-2004 1:17 AM Bill Birkeland has not replied
 Message 63 by RandyB, posted 02-21-2005 10:22 AM Bill Birkeland has replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 36 of 190 (153263)
10-27-2004 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Bill Birkeland
10-27-2004 12:06 AM


Re: Polystrate Fossils of Joggins
Excellent rebuttal, Mr. Birkeland. I look forward to Randy Berg's response.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Bill Birkeland, posted 10-27-2004 12:06 AM Bill Birkeland has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by CK, posted 10-27-2004 7:13 PM roxrkool has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 37 of 190 (153468)
10-27-2004 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by roxrkool
10-27-2004 1:17 AM


Re: Polystrate Fossils of Joggins
you expect to see one?
I think Bill "nuclear strike" B's deconstruction finished him off.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by roxrkool, posted 10-27-2004 1:17 AM roxrkool has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by CK, posted 10-27-2004 7:27 PM CK has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 38 of 190 (153472)
10-27-2004 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by CK
10-27-2004 7:13 PM


Re: Polystrate Fossils of Joggins
SLOT88 Situs Judi Slot Online Terpercaya No 1 di Indonesia
I see Randy's paper is cited (and generally rubbished here) - clearly useful to link to Bill destruction of this "work".
What's the best way to cite Bill's response?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by CK, posted 10-27-2004 7:13 PM CK has not replied

MarkAustin
Member (Idle past 3815 days)
Posts: 122
From: London., UK
Joined: 05-23-2003


Message 39 of 190 (156951)
11-07-2004 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by RandyB
10-26-2004 12:42 PM


Re: You have no chance of learning
The Black Sea Speaks:
"Science... has found evidence for a massive deluge that may ... have inspired Noah's tale. About 7,500 years ago, a flood poured ten cubic miles of water a day--130 times more than flows over Niagara Falls - from the Mediterranean Sea into the Black Sea, abruptly turning the formerly freshwater lake into a brackish inland sea."2
"In 1993, William Ryan and Walter Pitman of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory dug up cores of sediment from the bottom of the Black sea. The cores showed that the sea's outer margins had once been dry land, indicating it had been two-thirds its present size. Furthermore, over the entire sea bottom was a thin, uniform layer of sediment that could only have been deposited during a flood. The researchers also found that within that layer saltwater mollusks appear, all from the Mediterranean and all dating
from around 7600 years ago."
But this is evidence against a global flood. If true, and it is still disputed, it shows that the land area around the Black Sea was dry at the time of the innundation: thus this was a local, although catastrophic event. In order to fit this into flood geologfy. you have to propose a global flod - then a retreat - and then and only then an innundation of the Black Sea. Total nonsense.

For Whigs admit no force but argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by RandyB, posted 10-26-2004 12:42 PM RandyB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by RandyB, posted 11-07-2004 9:18 PM MarkAustin has not replied

RandyB
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 190 (157075)
11-07-2004 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by MarkAustin
11-07-2004 11:58 AM


Re: You have no chance of learning
If God said there was a global flood, then there WAS a global flood -- and there is also evidence of that: such as quoted below. Whether or not you choose to accept that evidence is up to you.
"Two American oceanographic vessels pulled from the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico several long, slender cores of sediment. Included in them were the shells of tiny one-celled planktonic organisms called foraminifera. While living on the surface, these organisms lock into their shells a chemical record of the tempera-
ture and salinity of the water. When they reproduce, the shells are discarded and drop to the bottom. A cross-section of that bottom... carries a record of climates that may go back more than 100 million years. Every inch of core may represent as much as 1000 years of the earth's past."1
"The cores were analyzed in two separate investigations, by esare Emiliani of the University of Miami, and James Kennett of the University of Rhode Island and Nicholas Shackleton of Cambridge University. Both analyses indicated a dramatic change in salinity, providing compelling evidence of a vast flood of fresh water into the Gulf of Mexico. Using radiocarbon, geochemist Jerry Stripp of the University of Miami dated the flood at about 11,600 years ago." 1 To Emiliani, all the questions and arguments are minor beside the single fact that a vast amount of fresh melt water poured into the Gulf of Mexico. 'We know this,' he says, 'because the oxygen isotope ratios of the foraminifera shells show a marked temporary decrease in the salinity of the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. It clearly shows that there was a major period of flooding from 12,000 to 10,000 years ago... There was no question that there was a flood and there is no question that it was a universal flood 1.
"Emiliani's findings are corroborated by geologists Kennett and Shackleton, who concluded that there was a 'massive inpouring of glacial melt water into the Gulf of Mexico via the Mississippi River system. At the time of maximum inpouring of this water, surface salinities were...reduced by about ten percent."1
Could Worldwide Orderly = A Worldwide Flood?
"Such a hypothesis would require assumption of a highly unlikely pattern of faunal migrations, where swarms of species of Manticoceras are followed, everywhere at the same distance and the same time interval, by swarms of species of Cheiloceras, the two waves preserving their separate identities on a staggered mass migration around the world ... without evolutionary changes and without ever becoming mixed..."
"It would be easy to repeat this investigation for almost every critical zone fossil or fauna throughout the geological column for hundreds, perhaps thousands of... cases. The conclusions would be the same. In the words of Jeletsky (1956) we would have to 'invoke a miracle', if, for example, we were to assume anything but world-wide contemporaneous deposition for each of the 55 ammonite zones of the Jurassic. Not all of them occur everywhere, but wherever two or more are found in superposition they occur in the same order. 3 Arkell (1957, p. L112) 4 summarized the picture of ... Mesozoic ammonoids as follows:
'Evolution is above all very uneven. Certain periods were outstandingly productive of new and verile forms which often seem to have sprung into existence from nowhere... and to have become dominant almost simultaneously over a large part of the world... How such sudden multiple creations were brought about is a task for the future to determine.'" 3,4
1. Warshofsky, Fred, "Noah, The Flood, the Facts," Readers Digest,
Sept. 1977, pp.132-134.
3. Teichert, Curt, "Some Biostratigraphical Concepts," Bulletin of
the Geological Society of America, Vol. 69, Jan.1958, p.111.
4. Arkell, W. J.,1957, "Introduction to Mesozoic Ammonoidea,"
pp.81-129 in Moore, R. C., Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology,
Part L: Geological Society of America and Univ. of Kansas Press,
490 pp. 727, Green Forest, AZ 72638, p.239

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by MarkAustin, posted 11-07-2004 11:58 AM MarkAustin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by NosyNed, posted 11-07-2004 9:27 PM RandyB has not replied
 Message 42 by roxrkool, posted 11-08-2004 12:15 AM RandyB has not replied
 Message 43 by happy_atheist, posted 11-08-2004 8:07 AM RandyB has not replied
 Message 44 by Bill Birkeland, posted 11-08-2004 10:48 AM RandyB has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 41 of 190 (157077)
11-07-2004 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by RandyB
11-07-2004 9:18 PM


The flood
If God said there was a global flood, then there WAS a global flood -- and there is also evidence of that: such as quoted below. Whether or not you choose to accept that evidence is up to you.
And God spoke in the book He wrote. In the rocks of this earth. There He has made it clear that there has been no universal flood. If the interpretation of a book written and translated and interpreted by man is in disagreement with that then the interpretation (etc.) must be wrong.
There was no question that there was a flood and there is no question that it was a universal flood 1.
It seems that your source is a bit careless with you use of quotation marks and haven't closed them. Is the above words of your source or that of those who did the research you reference.
There is, of course, a known source for the flood in that reference. It was the melting of the ice sheets. Since it is NOT shown to be everywhere or even at the same time for when there are releases of fresh water it is NOT evidence for a universal flood.
, surface salinities were...reduced by about ten percent."
Clearly you have a problem right here. Is this the amount that you would expect the salinity to be reduced by a global "flood" that raises all the oceans to cover all that land?
All the rest I don't understand. What is the point?
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-07-2004 09:35 PM
{Fixed 1 quote box - AM}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-08-2004 12:46 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by RandyB, posted 11-07-2004 9:18 PM RandyB has not replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 42 of 190 (157110)
11-08-2004 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by RandyB
11-07-2004 9:18 PM


Re: You have no chance of learning
Randy, multiply those GoM cores by a thousand from other 10,000 - 12,000 year old sediment from all over the world and THEN you might have evidence for a world wide flood. Until then, you have evidence for a North American flood at the end of an ice age and nothing more.
I see evidence for a local flood, I just don't see any evidence whatsoever that it was global. Surely you recognize that, don't you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by RandyB, posted 11-07-2004 9:18 PM RandyB has not replied

happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4913 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 43 of 190 (157176)
11-08-2004 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by RandyB
11-07-2004 9:18 PM


Re: You have no chance of learning
RandyB writes:
If God said there was a global flood, then there WAS a global flood
Strangely, this won't cut it in a scientific debate. Conclusions are meant to come after the collation and analysis of evidence. You can't conclude there was a wordwide flood first, and then provide evidence for a smallscale (compared to a worldwide flood) local flood in the gulf of mexico.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by RandyB, posted 11-07-2004 9:18 PM RandyB has not replied

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


Message 44 of 190 (157242)
11-08-2004 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by RandyB
11-07-2004 9:18 PM


Re: You have no chance of learning
RandyB wrote:
"If God said there was a global flood, then there WAS a global
flood -- and there is also evidence of that: such as quoted
below. Whether or not you choose to accept that evidence is
up to you."
Did God tell you this personally? Or is this just your **personal** interpretation of Genesis, which is just one of many interpretations held by various Christians? There is a wide range of opinion as to whether or not the story of the Noachian Flood is to be taken literally as written in the Bible. The specific position taken on interpreting this story is matter of personal interpretation and belief. It is rather arrogant, if not a dishonest appeal to authority (God), for any one person to claim that their fallible personal interpretation of the Bible came directly from God.
RandyB quoted:
...text deleted...
"The cores were analyzed in two separate investigations, by Cesare
Emiliani of the University of Miami, and James Kennett of the
University of Rhode Island and Nicholas Shackleton of Cambridge
University. Both analyses indicated a dramatic change in salinity,
providing compelling evidence of a vast flood of fresh water into
the Gulf of Mexico. Using radiocarbon, geochemist Jerry Stripp of
the University of Miami dated the flood at about 11,600 years
ago." 1 To Emiliani, all the questions and arguments are minor
beside the single fact that a vast amount of fresh melt water
poured into the Gulf of Mexico. 'We know this,' he says, 'because
the oxygen isotope ratios of the foraminifera shells show a
marked temporary decrease in the salinity of the waters of the
Gulf of Mexico. It clearly shows that there was a major period
of flooding from 12,000 to 10,000 years ago... There was no
question that there was a flood and there is no question that
it was a universal flood 1.
The reference to this is:
"Warshofsky, Fred, "Noah, The Flood, the Facts," Readers Digest,
Sept. 1977, pp.132-134."
This is a popular article, whose author grossly misinterpreted the findings of these scientists. If a person goes back to the original article, they find that the data shows that the flooding was restricted only the Mississippi River. There is simply no evidence that any "universal flood" was involved.
What Randt B doesn't realize in this case, is that the antiquated research cited by Warshofsky, Emiliani et al. (1975), has been rendered obsolete in the 28 years since it was published. If a person looks at the latest research on the meltwater / freshwater events in the Gulf of Mexico, i.e. Aharon (2003), they would find that during the last 18,000 years, large floods of meltwater flowed down the Mississippi River and into the Gulf of Mexico at 13,400; 12,600; 11,900; 9,900; 9,700; and 9,100 BP. The period of time, argued by Emiliani et al. (1975) to have been a "period of flooding", in fact, was a period of complete cessation of meltwater flow down the Mississippi River between 11,900 and 9,900 BP. Thus, more recent research has disproved Emiliani et al. (1975)'s timing of meltwater floods down the Mississippi, which is used above by Warshofsky to argue for a global flood. In addition, it shows that there were many of these floods than proposed by Emiliani et al. (1975). Using Warshofsky's faulty interpretation of Emiliani et al. (1975), a person would have to admit that there had been **six**, not just one, alleged "global floods" during the last 18,000 years. If the pre-18,000 BP record from the Gulf of Mexico is considered, than the number of alleged "global floods" increases considerably.
References Cited:
Aharon, Paul, 2003, Meltwater flooding events in the Gulf of Mexico
revisited: Implications for rapid climate changes during the last
glaciation. Paleoceanography, Vol. 18, no. 4, 1079, doi: 10.1029/2002PA000840
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2002PA000840.shtml
Emiliani, C., Gartner, S., Lidz, B., Eldridge, K., Elvey, D. K.,
Huang, T. C., Stipp, J. J., and Swanson, M. F., 1975,
Paleoclimatological Anaylsis of Late Quaternary Cores from
the Northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Science. vol.189, no.4208,
pp. 1083-1088.
RandyB quoted:
"Emiliani's findings are corroborated by geologists Kennett and
Shackleton, who concluded that there was a 'massive inpouring
of glacial melt water into the Gulf of Mexico via the Mississippi
River system. At the time of maximum inpouring of this water,
surface salinities were...reduced by about ten percent."1
Again Kennett and Shackleton (1975) is research that was published 29 years ago, as Warshofsky's article was published 27 years ago. In that period of time, the record in the cores, from which the data came, was found to have been greatly distorted by slow sedimentation rates and bioturbation, which made the recognition of individual flood events and their accurate dating impossible. The same problem existed in case of the cores used by Emiliani (1976).
References Cited:
Kennett, J. P. and Shackleton, N. J., 1975, Laurentide ice sheet
meltwater recorded in the Gulf of Mexico. Science. vol. 188,
pp. 147-150.
RandyB continued:
Could Worldwide Orderly = A Worldwide Flood?
"Such a hypothesis would require assumption of a highly unlikely
pattern of faunal migrations, where swarms of species of Manticoceras
are followed, everywhere at the same distance and the same time
interval, by swarms of species of Cheiloceras, the two waves
preserving their separate identities on a staggered mass migration
around the world ... without evolutionary changes and without ever
becoming mixed..."
...rest of text deleted...
In this argument, the author just shows how ill-informed he is of how interconnected the world's ocean are and how easily and quickly ocean currents transport pelagic organisms. Given the ease, by which surface currents distribute pelagic organisms, there is simply no need to invoke "mass migrations" of them to explain their global distribution. The animals didn't need to move. Rather the ocean currents did it for them. The global distribution of any pelagic organism would only take a period of several decades to a few thousand years to occur by ocean currents. Such "small" intervals of time rarely can be resolved in the geologic record. When it can be, a person finds that there are "small" differences in timing of the appearance and disappearence of species between ocean basins.
I suggest people go read "Microfossil Stratigraphy Presents Problems for the Flood" by Glenn R. Morton at:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/micro.htm
Best Regards,
Bill Birkeland
NOTE: I corrected an incorrect citation.
This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 11-09-2004 02:06 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by RandyB, posted 11-07-2004 9:18 PM RandyB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by RandyB, posted 11-08-2004 11:36 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied

RandyB
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 190 (157499)
11-08-2004 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Bill Birkeland
11-08-2004 10:48 AM


Evidence for a Worldwide Flood
RandyB wrote:
"If God said there was a global flood, then there WAS a global
flood -- and there is also evidence of that: such as quoted
below. Whether or not you choose to accept that evidence is
up to you."
Bill: Did God tell you this personally?
If you mean by this: Did He speak audibly to me and tell me that the Worldwide Flood that is spoken of in Genesis really did occur, the answer is NO (He did not tell me this audibly); however, I do believe that it happened -- and that He has **personally** motivated me to check this out for myself to see if it is in fact true (and which I believe it is).
Bill: Or is this just your **personal** interpretation of Genesis, which is just one of many interpretations held by various Christians?
Randy: The only "interpretation" that makes any sense at all is that it really happened just the way it says in Genesis. This is also supported by Jesus, Himself -- who, by the way, claimed that He was also around when it happened (in His preincarnate being -- as God).
See Micah 5:2; John 8:48-58; Exodus 3:13-15; Luke 17:26-27
The apostle Peter also must have read about the Flood, for Himself, 2000 years ago (most likely from Genesis) for he also spoke about it in 2 Peter 2:4-5.
Bill: There is a wide range of opinion as to whether or not the story of the Noachian Flood is to be taken literally as written in the Bible.
Randy: Actually, the Bible is quite clear as to what actually happened, and that every mountain on the whole earth was covered, and that all flesh on the earth was destroyed (inlcuding beasts and all mankind) except that which was on the Ark. But as Ariel Roth has noted, one does't even need to use to Bible to arrive at such a conclusion. His paper is at:
Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that...
I have also written a short article on this at:
Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood – Earth Age
However, the article at:
Flood Legends From Around the World
is much more indepth and has many more links attached. I do, however, have a copy of the translation of the Gilgamesh account -- which I obtained at a local University Library -- and it does very closely resemble Genesis. Ariel discusses this in his paper above.
Bill: snip
RandyB quoted:
...text deleted...
"The cores were analyzed in two separate investigations, by Cesare
Emiliani of the University of Miami, and James Kennett of the
University of Rhode Island and Nicholas Shackleton of Cambridge
University. Both analyses indicated a dramatic change in salinity,
providing compelling evidence of a vast flood of fresh water into
the Gulf of Mexico. Using radiocarbon, geochemist Jerry Stripp of
the University of Miami dated the flood at about 11,600 years
ago." 1 To Emiliani, all the questions and arguments are minor
beside the single fact that a vast amount of fresh melt water
poured into the Gulf of Mexico. 'We know this,' he says, 'because
the oxygen isotope ratios of the foraminifera shells show a
marked temporary decrease in the salinity of the waters of the
Gulf of Mexico. It clearly shows that there was a major period
of flooding from 12,000 to 10,000 years ago... There was no
question that there was a flood and there is no question that
it was a universal flood 1.
The reference to this is:
"Warshofsky, Fred, "Noah, The Flood, the Facts," Readers Digest,
Sept. 1977, pp.132-134."
This is a popular article, whose author grossly misinterpreted the findings of these scientists. If a person goes back to the original article, they find that the data shows that the flooding was restricted only the Mississippi River. There is simply no evidence that any "universal flood" was involved.
Randy: Then why don't you quote the actual article to us???
Also, if this were so (that it only involved the Mississippi River), then why would Emiliani state that it had to be a Worldwide Flood?
My guess is that this is because Emiliani didn't take his core samples at the mouth of the Mississippi (as you suggest above), but rather far out in the Gulf of Mexico -- which is, the last time I checked, tied (in a big way) to the Oceans of the World.
Bill: What Randt B doesn't realize in this case, is that the antiquated research cited by Warshofsky, Emiliani (1976), has been rendered obsolete in the 28 years since it was published. If a person looks at the latest research on the meltwater / freshwater events in the Gulf of Mexico, i.e. Aharon (2003), they would find that during the last 18,000 years, large floods of meltwater flowed down the Mississippi River and into the Gulf of Mexico at 13,400; 12,600; 11,900; 9,900; 9,700; and 9,100 BP.
Randy: For a closer look at Carbon 14 dating, see
What About Carbon-14 Dating of “Old” Dinosaur Bones? – Earth Age
and the associated Links to other sites -- and which are also
listed below.
Actually though, the Carbon 14 method does provide us with
very good evidence that the world is NOT millions of years
old -- as is attested to via the following links:
http://worldbydesign.org/...h/c14dating/datingdinosaurs.html
Geological Conflict | Answers in Genesis
Revolution Against Evolution – A Revolution of the Love of God
Much-Inflated Carbon-14 Dates from Subfossil Trees | Answers in Genesis
http://www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v1i5f.htm
http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/...son/datingmethods.htm
The Supposed Consistency of Evolution’s Long Ages | Answers in Genesis
How accurate are Carbon-14 and other radioactive dating methods? - ChristianAnswers.Net
And Here is a summary of how the "scientific" "Dates" are often
"manipulated" soas to support the theory of evolution. I.E. The case of the KBS Tuff.
Earth Age – The Truth About Earth's Age
Snip
RandyB quoted:
"Emiliani's findings are corroborated by geologists Kennett and
Shackleton, who concluded that there was a 'massive inpouring
of glacial melt water into the Gulf of Mexico via the Mississippi
River system. At the time of maximum inpouring of this water,
surface salinities were...reduced by about ten percent."1
Bill: Again Kennett and Shackleton (1975) is research that was published 29 years ago, as Warshofsky's article was published 27 years ago. In that period of time, the record in the cores, from which the data came, was found to have been greatly distorted by slow sedimentation rates and bioturbation, which made the recognition of individual flood events and their accurate dating impossible. The same problem existed in case of the cores used by Emiliani (1976).
References Cited:
Kennett, J. P. and Shackleton, N. J., 1975, Laurentide ice sheet
meltwater recorded in the Gulf of Mexico. Science. vol. 188,
pp. 147-150.
RandyB continued:
Could Worldwide Orderly = A Worldwide Flood?
"Such a hypothesis would require assumption of a highly unlikely
pattern of faunal migrations, where swarms of species of Manticoceras
are followed, everywhere at the same distance and the same time
interval, by swarms of species of Cheiloceras, the two waves
preserving their separate identities on a staggered mass migration
around the world ... without evolutionary changes and without ever
becoming mixed..."
...rest of text deleted...
rest of Text re-inserted:
"It would be easy to repeat this investigation for almost every critical zone fossil or fauna throughout the geological column for hundreds, perhaps thousands of...cases. The conclusions would be the same. In the words of Jeletsky (1956) we would have to 'invoke a miracle', if, for example, we were to assume anything but world-wide contemporaneous deposition for each of the 55 ammonite zones of the Jurassic. Not all of them occur everywhere, but wherever two or more are found in superposition they occur in the same order. 3 Arkell (1957, p. L112)4 summarized the picture of... Mesozoic ammonoids as follows:
'Evolution is above all very uneven. Certain periods were outstandingly productive of new and verile forms which often seem to have sprung into existence from nowhere... and to have become dominant almost simultaneously over a large part of the world... How such sudden multiple creations were brought about is a task for the future to determine.'" 3,4
3. Teichert, Curt, "Some Biostratigraphical Concepts," Bulletin of
the Geological Society of America, Vol. 69, Jan.1958, p.111.
4. Arkell, W. J.,1957, "Introduction to Mesozoic Ammonoidea,"
pp.81-129 in Moore, R. C., Treatise on Invertebrate
Paleontology, Part L: Geological Society of America and Univ. of
Kansas Press,490 pp. 727, Green Forest, AZ 72638, p.239
Bill: In this argument, the author just shows how ill-informed he is of how interconnected the world's ocean are and how easily and quickly ocean currents transport pelagic organisms.
Randy: And just happen to deposit them on every Continent -- always in the same order. But this is exactly what we have with regard to the supposed "river" deposits of Joggins. i.e. For some (strange) reason these same "rivers" just happened to deposit the same trees, with the same (normally) broken-off (and/or truncated) roots, and the same broken off and fragmented Stigmaria roots (which are also normally found with their rootlets broken off, and where we also find these broken-off rootlets deposited all by themselves -- usually in an upright state -- as opposed to being at all angles (as they were in life). And these same "river" deposists are also found, not just at Joggins, but also at Sidney (which is 150-200 miles to the North of Joggins), and also in Tennessee, and Kentucky, and Illinois, and Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. But even more strange is the fact that (coincidentally) Europe also "had" similar "rivers" that deposited similar Trees, with similar (usually) broken off and/or truncated roots), with similar Calamites and fragmented Stigmaria -- for this is what we also find in England and France and Germany.
This is also why I wrote my paper on the Nova Scotia "Fossil Forests."
Snip
Best Regards,
Bill Birkeland
And Randy Berg
This message has been re-edited by Randy Berg

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Bill Birkeland, posted 11-08-2004 10:48 AM Bill Birkeland has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 11-09-2004 3:17 AM RandyB 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