Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood
jimmy
Inactive Member


Message 437 of 460 (19053)
10-04-2002 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 435 by wmscott
10-02-2002 6:54 PM


Thanks for the reply, it was very informative, just the kind of information I'm looking for.
You requested some of the sources cited in the book I have read. I would do as you suggested, but I'm afraid the technology is not up to such requirements, i teach in a small town in Korea, I even have to have my reading books and sources sent in!
What I will do is qoute the feferences that are given in the book, if you have them already then i apologise for wasting your time, but i'll write them anyway.
1. With regards to tsunami's they(the authors) cite 'Stoker, J.J: Water Waves, The Mathmatical Theory with Applications, John Wiley&Sons,1992.'
2.With regards to the seven strike comet they cite as evidence 'Tollman, E and A: Terra Nova,6,1994,pp.209-217' , 'with regards to the tektite evidence, 'Glass,B.P, Australasian Microtektites and the Stratisgraphic Age of the Australites,Bull.geol.soc.Am,1978,pp.1455-1458.', 'Prasad, N.S.and Rao,P.S.: Tektites Far and Wide, Nature,347,1990,pp.340'
3.With regards to the dendrochronology evidence they cite 'Kromer,B. and Becker, B.: Tree Ring Carbon 14 Calibration at 10,000 BP,Proc.NATO Advanced Research Workshop, Erice,1990.'
4.Non specific evidence sources, 'Asteroid Impact:Atmospheric Injection, Benthic Topography, and the Surface Wave Radiation Field. Geological Implications of Large Asteroids and Comets on Earth' Spec.Papers Geol.Soc.A.,1990, pp.69-92.
There are other more general ones, but I will wait to see if you want those.If these are of no use,sorry. I would appreciate any web links to othe rsources or evidence, as access to the internet is my only escape from talkin, or trying to talk Korean to everyone!
cheers,
jimmy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 435 by wmscott, posted 10-02-2002 6:54 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 439 by wmscott, posted 10-07-2002 5:30 PM jimmy has not replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 438 of 460 (19248)
10-07-2002 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 436 by edge
10-03-2002 1:55 PM


Dear Edge;
quote:
Probably the best explanation is wind blown plankton. Other than that, I have no problem with local lacustrine or other periglacial deposits at elevations above sea level. The point is that there is no need to evoke some fantastic theory to get these deposits, and there is no evidence for a global flood.
Foraminifera are too large to be carried on the wind. (>57um) These are marine not lacustrine or freshwater. As I posted earlier: According to mainstream geology, at the end of the ice age, sea levels slowly rose to current levels and were never significantly above and this area was not significantly depressed in the ice age due in part to the glacial forebulge effect. Since Marine Foraninifera only come from the sea and are too large for wind transport, so what is the mainstream theory for how they got to SE Wisconsin?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by edge, posted 10-03-2002 1:55 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 440 by edge, posted 10-07-2002 9:42 PM wmscott has replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 439 of 460 (19249)
10-07-2002 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 437 by jimmy
10-04-2002 4:49 AM


Dear Jimmy;
Thank you for posting the references, they are very similar to the ones I have. On checking the Internet, I found two sites that had information on reviewing the evidence for the seven comet strikes, and they were not that well impressed. One site stated- "The geologic evidence is--or should be--less arguable" Page not found | Geophysical Institute indicating that the evidence supporting the seven comet strikes was arguable, they may not have been created by comet impacts and if they did they may not have happened at the same time. The second site was a little bit more specific in some of the problems with the supporting evidence. "Some scientists (e.g. PREISINGER) argue, that the evidence TOLLMANN refers to is not secure, in particular the dendrochronological, ice-core and radio-isotope data." we are sorry... In other words, the evidence that these events occurred together is poor and the event evidence may have been caused by other events than comet impacts such as volcanic eruptions. In fact in one of the references that I was able to track down on the Greenland ice core, the reference attributes the cited evidence to a volcanic eruption, not a comet impact. The article stated "There were six similar periods of elevated sulfate that are interpreted to be associated with volcanic activity during the 2000 years before the Younger Dryas-Holocene climate transition." Seven reoccurring volcanic eruptions over 2000 years is very believable, but seven large comet impacts all occurring in the same general area over 2000 years is not. Perhaps some of these events where volcanic while some where comet impacts, that may be possible, but it high lights how weak the evidence is for the seven strikes theory. Even the evidence for the tektite strewn fields of micro spherules have problems. The Australian tektites are dated hundreds of thousands of years earlier than what the Tollmanns would like, 770,000 years ago according to this site. http://www-phys.llnl.gov/tektite/report.html And the Austrian impact event was probably not an ocean impact anyway. This site http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/LPSC99/pdf/1081.pdf stated that "This suggests that the source crater is in southern Laos or adjoining Thailand or Vietnam. Thus, our preliminary findings are consistent with Schnetzler's [4] conclusion that the source crater is in a limited area near the southern part of the Thailand-Laos border" which means the tektites are not evidence for an ocean impact. This combined with the dating problems pretty much throws the evidence for any ocean impacts in the area of Australia at the time of the flood, out the window. Such an impact may have happened, we just don't have any evidence for it. The map in this article looks a lot like the map generally used for the seven comet strikes. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2001/pdf/2027.pdf But these are large impacts of greatly varying ages from many thousands of years to millions of years apart in time. In short, the evidence available on impact events doesn't seem to support the Tollmanns' theory. The earth has had many comet impacts and a number of them have occurred in the oceans, and some may have been fairly recent. But there just doesn't seem to be any evidence for the Tollmans' seven large oceanic comet impacts occurring simultaneously. Books like the one you read always sound very convincing until you read another book that contradicts it. One rule of thumb is to read books from opposing points of view to give yourself a more balanced prospective. This will allow you to see both sides of the issue. I have put the references on my list and will attempt to tack them down on my next visit to the university library.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by jimmy, posted 10-04-2002 4:49 AM jimmy has not replied

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


Message 440 of 460 (19264)
10-07-2002 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 438 by wmscott
10-07-2002 5:28 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
Probably the best explanation is wind blown plankton. Other than that, I have no problem with local lacustrine or other periglacial deposits at elevations above sea level. The point is that there is no need to evoke some fantastic theory to get these deposits, and there is no evidence for a global flood.
Foraminifera are too large to be carried on the wind. (>57um) [/quote]
I'll remember that next time I'm in a Nevada desert dust storm.
quote:
These are marine not lacustrine or freshwater. As I posted earlier: According to mainstream geology, at the end of the ice age, sea levels slowly rose to current levels and were never significantly above and this area was not significantly depressed in the ice age due in part to the glacial forebulge effect.
Hmm, why did the sea level rise slowly? According to you it rose quite rapidly. So who is right? You or everyone else? I also think I need to ask you to docuement that the marine waters NEVER invaded this part of the continent.
I still am not sure why we are even discussing this since such organisms at elevations of less than a thousand feet is hardly evidence for a flood. Please explain.
quote:
Since Marine Foraninifera only come from the sea and are too large for wind transport, so what is the mainstream theory for how they got to SE Wisconsin?
I have no idea since I am not a glacial geomorphologist, however, I see no evidence of a global flood. I still believe that forams can be wind transported from dried marine deposits in front of a receding glacier. Do you have evidenc to the contrary?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 438 by wmscott, posted 10-07-2002 5:28 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 441 by wmscott, posted 10-10-2002 5:37 PM edge has replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 441 of 460 (19574)
10-10-2002 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 440 by edge
10-07-2002 9:42 PM


Dear Edge;
quote:
I still believe that forams can be wind transported from dried marine deposits in front of a receding glacier. Do you have evidenc to the contrary?
Yes of course I have evidence. Only small particles below about 57 um in size are carried any real distance by the wind. Larger particles are carried shorter distances and sand size grains are not truly carried by the wind in a sand storm but are merely bounced along the ground by the wind, only the small dust size particles are carried up to any great height. A web site on wind erosion in talking about the sizes of particles carried by the wind stated. "Grains that are able to be lifted by the air stream but which fall back to the surface after a 'short' distance are traveling in saltation. Soil aggregates and particles larger than ~1000 microns cannot be picked up by the wind but tend to roll along the surface due to wind forces and impacting grains. These grains are moving by creep. Grains less than 20-30 microns are small enough to respond to turbulent fluctuations in the air stream and their motion is defined by turbulent diffusion. These grains are traveling by suspension and may remain airborne until rain washes them out of the air, often being deposited many kilometers downwind." http://www.cahe.wsu.edu/~cp3/erosion/erosion.htm In order to be carried any great distance sand grains have to be below 30 um, which means that particles above 57 um are not carried very far by wind.
As you can see, based on this evidence it is clear that forams are not carried very far by wind, and even smaller things like diatoms would not be carried far enough to reach the upper Midwest. So it is clear that only a temporary marine transgression could have left traces of marine forams in SE Wisconsin. So this raises the question of how extensive was this flooding.
quote:
Hmm, why did the sea level rise slowly? According to you it rose quite rapidly. So who is right? You or everyone else? I also think I need to ask you to docuement that the marine waters NEVER invaded this part of the continent.
Under main stream geology, it took a fair amount of time for the last Ice Age to end, as the Ice Sheets melted back, the water they contained was transferred back to the oceans from which it came. This is believed to have caused global sea levels to progressively rise from their Ice Age lows to the level they are found at today. More recent theories take into consideration the increasing amount of evidence that the Ice Age ended very abruptly with much of the ice disappearing in just a few short years. The newer findings indicate that the sea levels rose much quicker than had once been supposed, but they are still believed by most geologists to have merely increased to present level without any major transgressions. On major marine transgressions of the North American continent, Main stream geology does accept the formation of the Champlain sea which failed to even extend into lake Ontario. Lake Ontario has an elevation of 245 ft, the next lake west is lake Erie at 570 ft and is separated from lake Ontario by Niagara Falls. To cover SE Wisconsin would require a rise in the Chaplain's level by well over three hundred feet. The pattern of ice age and post ice drainage is known, and from this it is known that the areas west of the former Champlain sea were not depressed nearly enough to have once been under its waters. The pattern of fossils is that the finds in the Champlain sea area are associated with marine mud and bottom life showing a long marine submergence. While the other finds farther to the west such as the Michigan whale bones, lack the marine muds and bottom creatures, showing that the submergence in that area was much briefer. What happened is the areas west were only briefly submerged in the flood, and as a result not as much evidence of marine flooding was left behind.
The Champlain sea is as close as mainstream geology believes the sea got to the Midwest, which is why the Michigan whale bones are viewed as being moved by man since a marine transgression that far west is not accepted. SE Wisconsin is of course farther west and higher in elevation and was never isostactically depressed enough to be below current sea levels. This is of course shown by the ice age and post ice age drainage patterns. The Mississippi river and other rivers continued to flow, a extension of the sea into SE Wisconsin due to a glacial suppression, would have severely disrupted if not completely reversed their flow. Since this did not happen, we know that the areas drained by these rivers remained above sea level in recent geologic history.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 440 by edge, posted 10-07-2002 9:42 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 442 by edge, posted 10-11-2002 1:01 AM wmscott has replied

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


Message 442 of 460 (19598)
10-11-2002 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 441 by wmscott
10-10-2002 5:37 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
Yes of course I have evidence. Only small particles below about 57 um in size are carried any real distance by the wind. Larger particles are carried shorter distances and sand size grains are not truly carried by the wind in a sand storm but are merely bounced along the ground by the wind, only the small dust size particles are carried up to any great height. A web site on wind erosion in talking about the sizes of particles carried by the wind stated. "Grains that are able to be lifted by the air stream but which fall back to the surface after a 'short' distance are traveling in saltation. Soil aggregates and particles larger than ~1000 microns cannot be picked up by the wind but tend to roll along the surface due to wind forces and impacting grains. These grains are moving by creep. Grains less than 20-30 microns are small enough to respond to turbulent fluctuations in the air stream and their motion is defined by turbulent diffusion. These grains are traveling by suspension and may remain airborne until rain washes them out of the air, often being deposited many kilometers downwind." http://www.cahe.wsu.edu/~cp3/erosion/erosion.htm In order to be carried any great distance sand grains have to be below 30 um, which means that particles above 57 um are not carried very far by wind.
As you can see, based on this evidence it is clear that forams are not carried very far by wind, and even smaller things like diatoms would not be carried far enough to reach the upper Midwest. So it is clear that only a temporary marine transgression could have left traces of marine forams in SE Wisconsin. So this raises the question of how extensive was this flooding.
This is all very interesting, wmscott. But I do not see quite what the properties of sand grains has to do with diatoms. According to these two websites, diatoms can be as small as 10 microns and can be blown great distances by the wind.
http://igloo.gsfc.nasa.gov/wais/abstracts00/Kellogg2.htm
http://thalassa.gso.uri.edu/ESphyto/sizeshap/shape.htm
Perhaps you should better define just what type of diatoms you are dealing with and then be SURE that they are indeed marine. Though I am not a palynologist, I seem to understand that there are some freshwater diatoms that can look like marine counterparts. Are you sure of your sources?
quote:
edge: Hmm, why did the sea level rise slowly? According to you it rose quite rapidly. So who is right? You or everyone else? I also think I need to ask you to docuement that the marine waters NEVER invaded this part of the continent.
wmscott: Under main stream geology, it took a fair amount of time for the last Ice Age to end, as the Ice Sheets melted back, the water they contained was transferred back to the oceans from which it came. This is believed to have caused global sea levels to progressively rise from their Ice Age lows to the level they are found at today. More recent theories take into consideration the increasing amount of evidence that the Ice Age ended very abruptly with much of the ice disappearing in just a few short years. The newer findings indicate that the sea levels rose much quicker than had once been supposed, but they are still believed by most geologists to have merely increased to present level without any major transgressions.
Okay, so far you are not exactly supporting your point.
quote:
On major marine transgressions of the North American continent, Main stream geology does accept the formation of the Champlain sea which failed to even extend into lake Ontario. Lake Ontario has an elevation of 245 ft, the next lake west is lake Erie at 570 ft and is separated from lake Ontario by Niagara Falls. To cover SE Wisconsin would require a rise in the Chaplain's level by well over three hundred feet.
Yes, using todays elevations, that is. Come on, wmscott, I want PROOF!
quote:
The pattern of ice age and post ice drainage is known, and from this it is known that the areas west of the former Champlain sea were not depressed nearly enough to have once been under its waters. The pattern of fossils is that the finds in the Champlain sea area are associated with marine mud and bottom life showing a long marine submergence.
Yes and just a few hundred miles from Wisconsin. Your marine environment is getting much closer than it is today.
quote:
The Champlain sea is as close as mainstream geology believes the sea got to the Midwest, which is why the Michigan whale bones are viewed as being moved by man since a marine transgression that far west is not accepted.
Hmm, seems to me that airborne diatoms have not been ruled out.
quote:
SE Wisconsin is of course farther west and higher in elevation and was never isostactically depressed enough to be below current sea levels. This is of course shown by the ice age and post ice age drainage patterns. The Mississippi river and other rivers continued to flow, a extension of the sea into SE Wisconsin due to a glacial suppression, would have severely disrupted if not completely reversed their flow. Since this did not happen, we know that the areas drained by these rivers remained above sea level in recent geologic history.
But still well within the range of wind transport. Nevertheless, I am still wondering what this all had to do with a global flood. I see no evidence yet that compels one to even consider a biblical flood. I also repeat my suggestion that you take a closer look at these diatoms. There are so many holes in your story that I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find that they are not marine diatoms at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 441 by wmscott, posted 10-10-2002 5:37 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 443 by wmscott, posted 10-12-2002 9:56 PM edge has replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 443 of 460 (19752)
10-12-2002 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 442 by edge
10-11-2002 1:01 AM


Dear Edge;
quote:
diatoms can be as small as 10 microns and can be blown great distances by the wind.
And some diatoms are larger. Measuring the image size of some that I have taken pictures of, and reducing the size by the magnification factor, some marine diatoms that I have found measure approximately 130 microns. Which is far too large to have been carried to Midwest by wind. Since some challenged my findings on diatoms and suggested that forams would been more convincing due to their larger sizes, I have found them as well. Since I am using a 63 micron sieve, everything I now find is larger than 63 microns. Some things that I have found range up to and beyond 500 microns. So wind blown is not a possible explanation for what I have been finding.
quote:
Perhaps you should better define just what type of diatoms you are dealing with and then be SURE that they are indeed marine. Though I am not a palynologist, I seem to understand that there are some freshwater diatoms that can look like marine counterparts. Are you sure of your sources?
Yes, I was concerned about this as well and was very careful. For identifying the diatoms I used a very reliable identification guide that the publisher in private correspondence assured me is widely used and a standard in the field. For the forams I have so far mainly been using the book "Recent Planktonic Foraminfera" which is one of the best available books on the subject.
On the Champagne Sea, the distance from where it was and SE Wisconsin is well over 600 hundred miles, and perhaps closer to 1,000 miles. As for using today's elevations, they are the best reference we have. I believe the elevation difference was less than the current 1000 ft, but as I pointed out in my last post, we know from river drainage patterns that the upper Midwest was not depressed below sea level or even close. The Mississippi is a long river, depressing SE Wisconsin below the elevations found to the south, would have reversed the flow of the upper portion of the river, which we know did not happen. I can also tell you that if this area had been submerged by isostactic depression, we would know about, since we would find marine muds as are find in the area of the former Champagne Sea. The lack of such a finding eliminates any possibility of a lengthily submergence due to glacially induced isostactasy. Frankly to argue that my findings of a marine flooding here are due to local glacial depression is a waste of time since my next step is to survey other areas around the country. As I hopefully get positive findings from more areas, are you going to use the same local depression argument for each area?
If you still doubt my findings of marine diatoms, as I have offered before, I would be happy to e-mail some of the pictures I have taken and you can identify them for yourself. The identification is actually pretty easy and clear cut once you have the right guide book. Forams are a bit harder and my pictures so far have less clear than what I would like, but in time I hope to soon have some equally clear pictures. Once I have I them, I would be happy to send them as well and you can have a look at them too. Once you see these things with your own eyes and realize what they mean, it changes the way you look at things, the world is suddenly a different place.
But diatoms and forams are small potatoes, now for something that will really knock your socks off. I have been sorting through what I find in my slides, which is a real mix of odds and ends. One of the things I have found are these black little balls about 700 microns in diameter that look like perfect little ball bearings. They have been a bit of a inconvenience, being fairly many and making it somewhat harder to find what I have been looking for in my slides. Friday I decided see if I could figure out what they were, see if they were significant. So I took a probe and crushed one, to my surprise the ball cracked like glass and was black and crystalline inside. I got a chill, I realized that I was looking at a microtektite. Microtektites are created by comet and meteor impacts and that as far as I know is their only source. Remember earlier in this thread when I was talking about how it was comet impacts on the Laurentide Ice Sheet that melted the ice and caused the flood, and everyone wanted evidence? Well, now I have it. Microtektites in glacial till with marine micro fossils, the whole story in miniature. Once I get some decent pictures I would be happy to sent some to you also. If any one out there with some experience with this type of thing wants to examine some of these microtektites, I would be happy to mail a sample to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by edge, posted 10-11-2002 1:01 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 444 by Percy, posted 10-12-2002 10:16 PM wmscott has replied
 Message 445 by edge, posted 10-12-2002 10:54 PM wmscott has not replied
 Message 446 by edge, posted 10-13-2002 2:24 PM wmscott has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 444 of 460 (19753)
10-12-2002 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 443 by wmscott
10-12-2002 9:56 PM


I suggest you get validation of your interpretations from professional biologists and geologists. Normally one does this by presenting one's findings to one's peers in journals and at conferences, not at obscure bulletin boards.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 443 by wmscott, posted 10-12-2002 9:56 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 447 by wmscott, posted 10-15-2002 5:21 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 445 of 460 (19754)
10-12-2002 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 443 by wmscott
10-12-2002 9:56 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
And some diatoms are larger. Measuring the image size of some that I have taken pictures of, and reducing the size by the magnification factor, some marine diatoms that I have found measure approximately 130 microns. Which is far too large to have been carried to Midwest by wind.
I'm not sure how you would know this. You have only discussed the aerodynamics of sand grains. There is a difference between them and diatoms.
quote:
e: Perhaps you should better define just what type of diatoms you are dealing with and then be SURE that they are indeed marine. Though I am not a palynologist, I seem to understand that there are some freshwater diatoms that can look like marine counterparts. Are you sure of your sources?
wmscott: Yes, I was concerned about this as well and was very careful. For identifying the diatoms I used a very reliable identification guide that the publisher in private correspondence assured me is widely used and a standard in the field. For the forams I have so far mainly been using the book "Recent Planktonic Foraminfera" which is one of the best available books on the subject.
And your qualifications to do this are?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 443 by wmscott, posted 10-12-2002 9:56 PM wmscott has not replied

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


Message 446 of 460 (19794)
10-13-2002 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 443 by wmscott
10-12-2002 9:56 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
And some diatoms are larger. Measuring the image size of some that I have taken pictures of, and reducing the size by the magnification factor, some marine diatoms that I have found measure approximately 130 microns. Which is far too large to have been carried to Midwest by wind. Since some challenged my findings on diatoms and suggested that forams would been more convincing due to their larger sizes, I have found them as well. Since I am using a 63 micron sieve, everything I now find is larger than 63 microns. Some things that I have found range up to and beyond 500 microns. So wind blown is not a possible explanation for what I have been finding.
I have gone through my old texbooks and they seem to disagree with your conclusions. They say that wind can be a very effective transporter of sediments up to the medium-grained sand size. This includes grains up to 200 microns. My own observation of windblown sand is that the grains are visible to me even with my impaired vision. That must make them substantially larger than 75 microns which is naked-eye visible to most people with good eyesight. Having said this, it is still not terribly relevant to windblown diatoms, unless you can prove to me that diatoms have a substantially similar density and surface roughness to quartz grains. Are you just blowing off the fact that diatoms are transported hundreds of miles to the interior of Antarctica to be entombed in the ice there?
But diatoms and forams are small potatoes, now for something that will really knock your socks off. I have been sorting through what I find in my slides, which is a real mix of odds and ends. One of the things I have found are these black little balls about 700 microns in diameter that look like perfect little ball bearings. They have been a bit of a inconvenience, being fairly many and making it somewhat harder to find what I have been looking for in my slides. Friday I decided see if I could figure out what they were, see if they were significant. So I took a probe and crushed one, to my surprise the ball cracked like glass and was black and crystalline inside. I got a chill, I realized that I was looking at a microtektite. [/quote]
Yes, these are quite common in the geological record. The earth receives some tons of them every day. I do find this very interesting, but do not see it as any particularly compelling evidence for a global flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 443 by wmscott, posted 10-12-2002 9:56 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 448 by wmscott, posted 10-15-2002 5:23 PM edge has replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 447 of 460 (19949)
10-15-2002 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 444 by Percy
10-12-2002 10:16 PM


Dear Percipient;
Prior to publishing, most researchers talk over their findings with their peers. Since I am a amateur scientist, I don't have that luxury, so I use this board to air my opinions and see if anyone can point out the holes in my ideas to me. I do intend to publish and the microtektites have given me a great idea to publish on that I will keep to myself for now. I am refining my tests and preparing to expand the area covered by my findings. Once I have completed this, I hopefully will have results that will interest leading scientific journals. But for now, I would love to have any "professional biologists and geologists" out there review my findings prior to publication. I am always more than willing to e-mail pictures of my findings to any one who wants to take a look.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 444 by Percy, posted 10-12-2002 10:16 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 449 by Percy, posted 10-15-2002 11:33 PM wmscott has replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 448 of 460 (19950)
10-15-2002 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 446 by edge
10-13-2002 2:24 PM


Dear Edge;
Diatoms don't have little wings, their ill regular shape and having a density closer to sea water than silica, will cause them to travel comparatively farther, but only so far. As for the wind blown diatoms in Antarctica you should look at their size. As you yourself pointed out, some diatoms are very small and are easily transported by wind. As I stated earlier, I am working with diatoms and now forams that are far too large for wind transport to account for. On your "wind can be a very effective transporter of sediments up to the medium-grained sand size. This includes grains up to 200 microns" I would suggest you remember your vantage point, standing on the ground I would guess. From such a vantage point you are seeing the saltation effect. To be carried hundreds or thousands of miles, the sand needs to be carried many thousands of feet up into the atmosphere. Ground level blowing will not do the trick. Consider sand dunes, they move by the wind blowing the sand up over the dune and down the other side, the dune is moved slowly inch by inch. The wind doesn't just blow them away up into the air and they come down in another part of the country. The sand grains the dunes are composed of are too large for the wind to carry away. Great rocks are moved by rivers, but of course the rocks don't float and are too large for normal turbulent river water too carry, they are moved as bed load. It is the same with wind blown sand, grains too large to be carried by the air are blown along the ground and near the ground. This is seen in the way sand dunes move in land under prevailing wind conditions. The site I posted the link to in post 441 had information on wind erosion that should be helpful.
On the microtektites you stated that "The earth receives some tons of them every day." are you saying that the earth has tons of debris created each day by daily impact events, or are you confusing microtektites with meteor dust? Impact events are fairly common in the geological sense, but they are not a daily event or the sky must really be falling where you live.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 446 by edge, posted 10-13-2002 2:24 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 452 by edge, posted 10-18-2002 11:23 AM wmscott has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 449 of 460 (19979)
10-15-2002 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 447 by wmscott
10-15-2002 5:21 PM


wmscott writes:
Since I am a amateur scientist, I don't have that luxury, so I use this board to air my opinions and see if anyone can point out the holes in my ideas to me.
Though you often cite evidence, it only rarely supports your ideas, so most of your ideas are unsupported by relevant evidence. Though this is frequently and repeatedly pointed out to you, rather than acknowledging this and gathering more evidence you instead argue that the evidence does so support your views. In other words, it doesn't matter what we say. After more than 400 messages all you've demonstrated is persistence and an inability to interpret evidence. I think you're less looking for feedback than for a pulpit.
Once I have completed this, I hopefully will have results that will interest leading scientific journals.
We've heard this paper talk before. If any of this sees print I'm sure it will once again be self-published. Your book isn't exactly taking the Creationist world by storm. The only websites where I could find it mentioned were this one, a few booksellers and one library. If you can't even get Creationists intrigued, how are you going to convince scientists?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by wmscott, posted 10-15-2002 5:21 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 450 by wmscott, posted 10-17-2002 5:14 PM Percy has replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 450 of 460 (20130)
10-17-2002 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 449 by Percy
10-15-2002 11:33 PM


Dear Percipient;
You are not living up to your screen name. In fact I spend a good part of my free time doing research, reading related books, journal articles and doing field work. In your last post you even commented on my recent finding of tektites, now you say that I am not looking for evidence. As for not listening, visionary thinkers have always had to ignore the ranting of the naysayers. For the most part, that is what most of the objections have been, blanket rejections without a detailed explanation backed up by supporting evidence. Very few have taken the trouble to do their home work and really make a good challenge, and when they have I have answered their objections. A challenge without a detailed explanation of supporting evidence, is in the end, just a statement of faith by the poster in the higher authority they appeal to. I already know where I stand in respect to the authorities, I am challenging them which is what new discoveries do. Appealing to them in this debate without evidence is meaningless and pointless. We are arguing over the evidence, if you have no evidence to post, you are not being ignored since you really haven't said anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 449 by Percy, posted 10-15-2002 11:33 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 451 by Percy, posted 10-17-2002 9:01 PM wmscott has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 451 of 460 (20143)
10-17-2002 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 450 by wmscott
10-17-2002 5:14 PM


wmscott writes:
You are not living up to your screen name.
My screen name isn't spelled i-n-f-i-n-i-t-e-p-a-t-i-e-n-c-e. It has been over 400 messages on this thread now.
In your last post you even commented on my recent finding of tektites, now you say that I am not looking for evidence.
I was, of course, referring to your fanciful interpretations in earlier discussions, such as that animals survived the flood by rafting, that comets collapsed entire ice sheets, that mountains rose miles and sea floors sank leagues. You once offered about the best summary I've ever seen in defense of an ancient earth in a short-lived exchange with TB (if I had more time there would be "post of the month" awards, and that one definitely would have won), but when it comes to your pet ideas your imagination and mental discipline is wilder than a five-year old's. And then you top it off by going off to find even more evidence to misinterpret.
The reason all your ideas are so outlandish is because of your starting premise. You reason that Noah's flood is a fact, it must have happened, there's no way it couldn't have happened, the world was once completely covered with H2O, and with that as your stake in the ground you try to figure out what must therefore have happened, and you'll accept anything, no matter how ridiculous, because to give up on Noah's flood is unacceptable to you.
By the way, since your view is that not all water covering the earth had to be liquid, why isn't the gaseous form as acceptable as ice and snow? Accepting clouds and rain as water cover would solve a lot of conundrums for you.
As for not listening, visionary thinkers have always had to ignore the ranting of the naysayers.
Self-published, and now self-anointed.
You call the replies posted to you as "the ranting of the naysayers," more evidence that you're goal is lecturing, not listening. And it raises the question, why are you wasting your time preaching to a bunch of naysayers?
--Percy
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 10-17-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 450 by wmscott, posted 10-17-2002 5:14 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 453 by wmscott, posted 11-04-2002 4:40 PM Percy has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024