Uniformitarianism

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I'll read the early stuff more carefully but

​

1. I believe in actualism. I am convinced that the layers were formed by flowing and settling water and not miraculously.

---

JM: Of course that water was a miracle according to you. It was created by a god who so loved the world and his creation that he decided to kill it all and start over.

quote:

---

2. Uniformitarianism would be a great theory if it weren't for the possibility that a huge flood generated much of the geological column. The huge beds worldwide only approximately match existing sedimentary environments. It is an extent issue. Paleocurrents and the spatial extent of beds make the stance of uniformitarianism quite ludicrous.

---

JM: Yes, and we've shown you elsewhere the folly of your naivete.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I'm not claiming there are worldwide beds! I'm claiming there are, worldwide, many examples of huge correlated beds.

---

JM: But you are claiming a worldwide flood! Secondly, despite all the hyperbole you've never presented any evvidence for 'huge' correlated beds. You make claims and the ignore answers and references. Several of us gave you references to modern/ancient paleocurrent analogues and in another thread you 'are going to give this to your next grad student'. Do you have a short-intermediate term memory problem or do you post here without reading replies?

quote:

---

My examples of the cyclothem beds were not refuted as correlated beds. The sand comes and goes horizontally but it is clear they were due to a correlate phenomenon that occurred halfway across North America. This phenomenon of high energy sand deposits was interspersed withcoal 50 times. But do we link the high energy with coal formation. 'Oh no, its coincidental you say'. The simple interpretaiton is that the 50 coal seems are causally associated with high energy flooding.

---

JM: And as with all 'fans' of geology who do not bother to delve into the subject you were shown to be completely wrong. Or did you also forget the many examples, references and photos showed to you during that discussion. You know, just about every creationist I know pretends that the only data that exist are those that support their 'hypothesis'. They ignore volumes of contradictory literature. You should know--if your schtick about being a professional scientist hiding behind a pseudonmym is accurate--that such science never gets published in the mainstream literature. Yet, you, Humphreys, Austin and Baumgardner (to name a few) ignore facts in favor of fancy.CheersJoe Meert Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix the first quote box. There was a half of a "bolding code" in there.