Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood II

Your ability to misinterpret what you read as favorable to your views is breathtaking. I strongly disagree with almost all your proposals, and I accept almost none of your evidence, yet you somehow convinced yourself that I thought I had made a definite diatom identification? You have got to take off those rose-colored glasses!When I found another diatom that vaguely resembled your photo I mentioned it to you in order to point out the ambiguity in your own identification. I by no means thought I was making a definite identification, and I said so very clearly. Here are some excerpts from that message ( Message 67): That you made such a gross misinterpretation of my post is really bewildering, but it is at least consistent with your habit of interpreting everything you read in the most wildly optimistic fashion possible. Positive thinking is a good thing, but let us please at least continue to inhabit reality.The point I have been trying to make to you is that you have to figure out how to persuade others. Interpreting opposition as support within your own mind is an interesting and imaginative shortcut, but it has no correspondence to external reality and in the end is just delusional.--Percy[This message has been edited by Percipient, 01-17-2003]

I already told you I only looked at diatom pictures. As I've already said (why do I have to keep typing "As I've already said"?), I'm sure that if I examined other types of micro-organisms that I'd find vague resemblances there, too.You are trying to argue that I in some way supported your viewpoint when I am in essence standing right here in front of you shouting my disagreements at you. I don't think your ID is correct, I don't think my ID is correct, and I don't have any idea whether your picture is even of a diatom or not.By the way, they don't happen to use fertilizer out your way, do they?--Percy

Just for the heck of it I tried to find some pictures of other types of algae. These aren't as common on the net as pictures of diatoms, but they're also circular with splines, so here's another vague resemblance, this time to something that isn't even a diatom:And, of course, algae is just one form of the many types of microscopic life. Like I keep saying, the object in your photo is in such poor condition it could be anything. I'm not saying it isn't a diatom. I'm saying, as I've been saying all along, that I'm a non-expert when it comes to diatom identification, so all I can do is note the vague resemblance between your photo and various reference photos.I'm beginning to sense a reluctance on your part to seriously explore whether or not you are right, so I again encourage you to put your evidence before people who are properly qualified to evaluate it.--Percy

I can't be any more certain than the website they came from, which called them algae and not diatoms, so maybe they're diatoms. They *do* look like diatoms, don't they. Hey, I keep saying I'm not an expert. If Wmscott takes his pictures to a qualified geologist or biologist practiced at identifying diatoms, and that person concurs that they're marine diatoms, then that would increase my confidence in Wmscott's IDs, which is at around zero right now. And if the pictures made it into a journal paper, meaning it had gone through peer review, then that would give me even greater confidence.But even if Wmscott's IDs are right on the mark I don't think it would provide any support for his ideas. I've recently received some information that indicates marine diatoms are ubiquitous in the environments of industrialized countries because of the use of diatomacious deposits in a variety of applications from fertilizer to cattle feed to air filters. I'll post it when I get a chance, but I've been hoping the person who sent me the info would post it himself. Last chance, guy!--Percy

Once again, I did not claim to make an identification, not this time, not the time before, not ever. I am not an expert in diatoms. I have no idea what a damaged diatom should look like. I cannot even tell diatoms from other forms of algae, as witness the last set of photos which Moose noted could easily be diatoms. I have repeated this and similar statements over and over and over again.Yet you keep claiming I made some sort of ID. Do you not understand English?Let me explain this one last time. I orginally said your photo was of poor quality and could resemble many things. A large proportion of microrganisms are probably round with splines, so most recently I posted some more pictures of round microrganisms with splines. This is consistent and in keeping with my earlier picture of Asteromphalus heptactis, where I also was not attempting to make an identification, but was just pointing out the ambiguity in your own ID by providing a picture of something else your photo also vaguely resembled. I spent all of five minutes finding that picture, and I didn't even look at any fresh water diatoms, and I expect that there are fresh water variants of many marine species. Your diatom has two splines. Did it loose five splines? Ten splines? Twenty splines? Whatever your answer, how do you know?About the only support you can find from me is that I think your photo bears a better vague resemblance to the diatom I found than the one you found. But it's still a vague resemblance, and I would never claim I made an ID based on such a poor resemblance. And since I believe in consensus (more about this later), I wouldn't believe I'd made a proper ID until it had been confirmed and agreed to by others.Moving on to a more significant topic, you've apparently failed to consider one of the primary forms of diatom distribution: ground transport. Apparently marine diatoms are distributed by rail, by truck, by car, by cow and even by International Harvester. Almost a couple weeks ago an email arrived describing the various uses of diatomaceous material. I don't know why the author didn't post it him/herself, but s/he offered it to me to use. I replied encouraging the author to post the material him/herself, but now I think I've waited long enough, and so I include it here unchanged except for formatting and spelling:

​ Dear Mr. Percipient, ​ I have noticed your discussion on the Evolution Versus Creation Board. I thought that I might add a couple of comments about the dispersal of diatoms in the messages at: ​ http://EvC Forum: Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood II -->EvC Forum: Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood II ​ One factor in the dispersion of diatoms that Mr. wmscott seems to have overlooked is that within modern times humans have become a very active agent in the dispersion of diatoms. ​ The fact of the matter is that 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. ​ For example, diatomite is also used in soundproofing. The breakage of soundproofing material whenever buildings are constructed and demolished contribute diatoms to the environment. similarly, diatomite is used as a filler in pints and plastics. when these paints and plastics degrade, they release diatoms into the environment. ​ A major use of diatomite is in the horticultural/agricultural markets. In agriculture, diatomite has been mixed in with soil as a soil conditioner and potting mix. Also, diatomite is used as a filler and anti-caking agent in fertilizer and pesticides. As a result, diatomite is deliberately spread over soils to improve them causing diatoms to be mixed within them. Also, diatoms are introduced into soils whenever many fertilizers and pesticides are applied to them. ​ Similarly diatomite is used as a filler in detergent and to make certain kitty litters. The use of these detergent and kitty litters spreads out-of-place diatoms to many places. ​ Some web pages about it uses are: ​ Diatomite (http://www.mii.org/Minerals/photodiatom.html) ​ Forbidden Forbidden ​ Women In Mining Page not found - Women In Mining ​ Diatomite is organic pesticide Looks like snowflakes, works like cut glass inside insect covering. ​ http://www.greenerplants.com/page83.html ​ "Ranchers have used diatomite for years by adding some to cattle feed . When it is ingested it helps kill larvae living in the cows stomach. It does absolutely no harm to the cow." ​ It is safe to assume that the diatoms in the diatomite fed the cows doesn't stay in the cows, but ends up back in the soil with the manure. ​ DIATOMACEOUS EARTH: A Non Toxic Pesticide MACDONALD J. 47( 2): 14, 42 (May, 1986) ​ http://www.eap.mcgill.ca/Publications/eap4.htm ​ Diatomaceous Earth is fed to animals to reduce the emissions of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide from swine. Of course, whatever is fed these animals eventually makes it back into the soil some place. ​ Dietary Supplementation of Diatomaceous Earth and Zeolite to Reduce the Emission of Ammonia and Hydrogen Sulfide from Swine Slurry at: ​ http://www.gov.on.ca/...h/livestock/swine/research/page4.htm ​ Access denied ​ Ag Marketplace What In The World Is Diatomaceous Earth? And, What Can It Do For The Livestock Producer? Farmer? Animal Owner? ​ biconet.com - biconet Resources and Information. ​ There is an enormous amount of diatoms being spread over the face of the Earth by the agricultural use of diatomite and diatomaceous earth by farmers and ranchers. This is a fact that Mr. wmscott needs to be made aware of. ​ Needless to say the diatoms added to the cows end up on ground and eventually in the soil. ​ The amount of diatomite mined and consumed annually in the United States can be found at: ​ Diatomite Statistics and Information | U.S. Geological Survey ​ For example 808,000 metric tons of diatomite was mined and 677,000 metric tons consumed in the United States. Huge quantities of diatomite are being mined and being spread over the environment. ​ I hope that this is of interest ​

I couldn't get the last two links to work.I suggest you ask Edge or Joe Meert about possible geologists to contact about diatom identifications, but my guess is that at this point it would be a pointless exercise. If they're diatoms, then any experienced field geology will probably just tell you that marine diatoms found in surface material, especially in agricultural regions of the country like yours, frequently have a human origin.We've argued long and apparently pointlessly about your diatoms. The diatom discussion was different from most other conversations on the board because instead of discussing existing mainstream evidence we were talking about evidence you had gathered yourself and which only you had examined. I accept mainstream evidence because it has been repeatedly gathered, examined and reviewed by many people. I reject your evidence not just because I question your diatom IDs, but because you are working by yourself with no colleagues. You have no feedback or support from outside opinions, though your inner need for it is obvious in the way you proclaim you've found support in outside quarters, though no one else sees any.Science today is far too broad and complex an endeavor for the next major revolution to come from a scientific hermit in Wisconsin. It is a group activity which progresses through consensus. From a scientific standpoint, your pictures are only of diatoms when a lot of other qualified people agree with you that they're diatoms. And your diatoms arrived there by flood only when a lot of other people agree with you that they arrived by flood. Keep the need for consensus in mind. It's not enough that you think so, a lot of other people must think so, too.--Percy

Thanks for finding it! 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? 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. You have enough for a paper on marine diatoms in Wisconsin. 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

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

I wish you all the best in trying to improve this evidence. As do you. There is no physical evidence for Noah's flood, and your acceptance of it as a real event comes from the Bible, not from evidence, just like TB. The difference between you and TB is only one of proportion. TB ignores much of modern science, while you ignore a lesser amount.Throughout Christian history have been those who believed they knew precisely what the Bible meant. While many Biblical authors wrote very poetically and spiritually, they did not write very precisely. Practically every Biblical passage is open to more than one valid interpretation.--Percy

Boy, have you ever got things backward! If it were as unambiguous as you seem to think, you and TB wouldn't be having a debate on interpretation.--Percy

Hmmm. Blinded by their own religious doctrinal prejudices. Having a great emotional stake in having the Bible back up their belief system. This is as true of you as it is of TB. TB could as easily have written the same passage, merely changing the conclusion to read, "And that is why WmScott is having trouble understanding the Bible."The reason you and TB are two peas in a pod (with lots of other company here) is because you accept the flood as fact based upon revelation instead of evidence.--Percy

If we're talking religion here, then I've made no prejudicial expressions. I said nothing against yours or TB's religious beliefs. I've been pretty clear in only criticizing:

• Your belief that in your Biblical discussions with TB there is only one correct interpretation.
• Basing your science upon revelation instead of evidence.

Your religious beliefs have so colored your judgment that you grasp every flimsy straw as evidence of the flood. So does TB. Science works through consensus of the many so as to balance out individual beliefs and biases, and yours and TB's and LRP's and Peter Borger's inability to achieve any consensus should be telling you something about how scientific all your views are. You've all rejected each other's theories, accepting only your own personal viewpoint. You Creationists are not really all that different from the evolutionists who reject your theories - the only difference is that we reject them all while you reject all but one.--Percy

Hi WmScott! The charge of prejudice puzzled me and has been kind of simmering in my unconscious, and then today it suddenly hit me why you said this. You didn't quote what you were replying to, but my message was short so it must have been this: These aren't my sentiments, I was merely echoing your own thoughts back to you from Message 144 where you said: I didn't put quotes around it because it wasn't word-for-word what your wrote, I just assumed you'd recognize it. My point, in case it wasn't obvious, is that you are apparently as susceptible to such influences as those Christians you criticize.--Percy

Hi WmScott!I think you're a bit off topic. If you'd really like a response then why don't you repost in a new thread in the Is It Science forum or the Faith and Belief forum - I'm not sure which would be the better fit.--Percy