Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,208 Year: 5,465/9,624 Month: 490/323 Week: 130/204 Day: 4/26 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood II
edge
Member (Idle past 1819 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 2 of 234 (22072)
11-10-2002 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Admin
11-09-2002 10:18 PM


quote:
You have been pretty cryptic about this but OK, so let me see if I have got this straight now, you are referring to the Entrada Formation which is a 166 million year old Jurassic sandstone formation in eastern Utah and western Colorado?
Yes, but I mistakenly thought that a well-read geologist such as yourself would be quite familiar with this unit.
quote:
You are really reaching deep into the past, couldn't you find a more recent example? And why are you bothering with the Entrada Formation when the there are far larger sandstone formations such as the Morrison Formation?
Well, it was the first one that came to mind since I took a field trip across the Colorado Plateau last year. You know, a field trip is one that you actually go out and see the rocks. They used to be an important part of a geological education. And no, I didn't use the Morrison Fm. because it has no eolian sands that I know of.
quote:
I gather, based on the line of argument you have been pursuing, that you are stating that the location and extent of this sandstone deposit is evidence of wind lofting of very large sand grains far larger than what we see today? That would be a unique view point.
Not at all. The grain size is not unusual for eolian sands, but they are visible grains (fine sand) so I assume that they are at least 75 microns, which is being conservative due to my less than perfect eyesight. As I remember you said something like wind is not an effective transporter of sand grains greater than 57 microns. And yet here is the Slick Rock member covering probably over a ten thousand square miles and up to a couple of hundred miles from its source in the Uncompahgre uplift.
And, as you have indicated, the Entrada is not exactly one of the largest formations containing eolian sands. It shouldn't be hard to come up with other larger, modern or ancient examples. For one the Sahara might come to mind. You have mentioned below that most transport of Entrada sands actually being carried out by streams (which I disagree with, but that is of no import)... So where are the stream deposits that are the source of the Saharan sand dunes?
quote:
...
Normal accepted means of transporting sand and sediment are adequate to explain the size and extent of the deposit.
Yes, including wind.
quote:
... It sounds like most of the sand was carried to the area by water, not wind and was locally reworked by wind to create the dunes.
Not the Slick Rock.
quote:
I fail to see why you believe large scale transport of large sand particles by wind lofting was required, it is certainly not a mainstream view, remember I am suppose to be the one here that is off the wall.
I don't know what you mean by this. The Entrada includes sands of grain size greater than you say are impossible, carried significant distances by wind alone.
quote:
...
You stated that you disagreed with the 57 micron limit on wind lofting, why and for what reasons and what evidence do you base this on?
That is what I have just given you. I am sorry that I assumed you knew about all of this before.
quote:
From what I have been able to find, 40 microns is a more reasonable limit based on the maximum size found in wind lofted deposits. I have seen nothing to support a much larger lofting limit size.
Now you do. Fine sands are effectively transported by wind. Diatoms should be even easier to transport.
quote:
Density of diatoms and forams? Well they sink in water, which is why I used the reference to water droplet sizes, so figure a density a bit heavier than water.
Yes, and quite a bit less dense than quartz grains. Why would you compare the aerodynamics of diatoms diredtly to those quartz grains? Just guessing, but an equivalent dimension of diatoms to quarts grains of 57 microns might even be double that and resulting in effectively easier transport.
By the way, not to be distracted too far from the main subject, when are you going to get us some actual evidence for a global flood? Ultimately, all this to-do over eolian transport is just so much fluff. Let's get into some real data supporting a global flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Admin, posted 11-09-2002 10:18 PM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by wmscott, posted 11-11-2002 4:49 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1819 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 11 of 234 (22309)
11-11-2002 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by wmscott
11-11-2002 4:49 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
Hey, I maybe well read, but as I have stated before I am not a degreed geologist and I doubt that even top class geologists have memorized all the world's formations. I don't know everything and I don't pretend that I do. One of the reasons I post here is to learn from the feed back.
Somehow, I seriously doubt your last statement. It does not appear to anyone here that you are willing to learn, but would rather take up your soapbox and sell your book. And your willingness to tilt at the windmills of mainstream geology suggests a degree of hubris that I can hardly imagine taking on without formal training.
quote:
Looking over our debate here, it seems you and I are having a problem with terms. Let's clear up some misconceptions, the term eolian includes particles that have been moved both by lofting and saltation. Lofting of sand is limited to about 40 microns, saltation is not and can and does move larger grains. Trying to use eolian deposits that contain saltated material to try to support a larger size limit for lofting, doesn't work. If you are to try to support a larger size limit for lofting, you will first have to show that lofting was the only way the deposit could have been made. But so far all of the dune deposits you have referred to, saltation has been involved, which defeats your argument. So as I see your position, you can either attempt to prove a much larger size limit on lofted particles or try to prove the material I have found was transported here by saltation. So which line of arguing do you wish to pursue?
Please document your statement that grains over 40 microns cannot be lofted. I actually have little problem with larger particles including drops of sea water containing diatoms being carried to heights that would make them transportable by stong winds. Since I am not a sedimentologist, I do not have supporting evidence at this time, but will make an effort to find it.
Other than this, you entirely miss my point that you are comparing quartz grains with diatoms... very different in their aerodynamic and transportability properties. If you do not address this you cannot be taken seriously.
Thirdly, you have yet to explain how diatoms got into ice formations at the south pole.
These are simple facts that you have decided to conveniently ignore. I do not intend to argue the finer points here, just show you that, logically, you must consider these things. I am not trying to 'prove' anything. That is for the absolutists. However, to jump from the limited evidence that you have to the inference of a global flood that left no obvious evidence, is sheer folly. Particularly since you are not as well-versed in geology as you occasionally imply in your dismissal of professional geologists on this board.
[quote]On side points, the Morrison Fm. has eolian sand dunes. [/B][/QUOTE]
Very likely, as they are common in near marine environments. However, I do not believe that the dunes cover large time-stratigraphic horizons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by wmscott, posted 11-11-2002 4:49 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by wmscott, posted 11-13-2002 5:58 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1819 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 16 of 234 (22596)
11-13-2002 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by wmscott
11-13-2002 5:58 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
The actual accepted range for the maximum size of particles that can be lofted or carried in suspension by the wind for great distances is about 40 to perhaps as much as 60 microns.
...
Hmm, see nothing here yet about diatoms.
quote:
Indicating that for diatoms found in Antarctica inland ice cores, 40 microns is accepted as a limit for wind lofted transport. Due to the characteristics of diatoms and foram I would be willing to accept a some what larger maximum size for long distance wind lofting, but so far I have failed to find any evidence to support that conclusion. Additionally many of the micromarine fossils I have found are well above the maximum for wind lofting by a very wide margin which defeats arguing about the extract lofting size limit anyway since they would still be above even a generous higher limit.
As far as I can see these are reworked sediments, wmscott. Also, it appears on a first scan that the microfossil separation method was designed to collect the finer grained diatoms.
quote:
The last link above is from a web site on diatoms in ice cores in Antarctica, check it out, as they stated in the above quote, the diatoms they found were less than 40 microns which is small enough for suspension in the wind which allows for long distance transport. I would be interested if you can find any information on diatoms of much larger sizes found in inland ice cores that are viewed as wind lofted material. HINT! HINT! (This would a good way for you to prove me wrong on this point. Go for it Edge!)
I hate to rain on your parade here, wmscott, but I am not trying to prove anything. Your statement betrays your lack of a scientific background. I am only trying to show that you have not considered all of the alternatives. This is only one area where you have not been complete in your treatment of your diatoms. In fact, I am not convinced that you diatoms are marine or even that they are diatoms. I am not convinced that they have not been saltated in some kind of reworked sediment. I am not convinced, either, that there were not temporary incursions of marine waters into the proglacial environment of the receding ice cap.
And most of all I am not convince that they have anything to to with any kind of global flood. The latter is really the evidence that you should be locating or providing. The rest of all this is really just a diversion. We can get caught up in all kind of geological minutia, but just what does all this have to to with a global flood?
In fact all you have done is start with a premise that there was a flood and then selectively combed the literature for factoids that, by themselves, might allow the interpretation of a flood. You have ignored the rest of the data out there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by wmscott, posted 11-13-2002 5:58 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by wmscott, posted 11-19-2002 4:24 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1819 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 20 of 234 (23284)
11-19-2002 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by wmscott
11-19-2002 4:24 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
quote:
I am not trying to prove anything
If you fail to support your position with evidence, you have already lost.
[/quote]
I am glad that you have finally come to realize this. Are you going to begin giving us evidence for your flood now?
quote:
You don't have to accept my findings of course, but you have failed to over turn them. I have to assume that the reason you have not provided evidence that over turns what I have been saying, is that you can't.
You have given me nothing to overturn. You say that sand grains cannot be transported long distances regardless of the fact that we are not dealing with sand grains. And even more telling is the fact that you can find nothing to support any kind of a global flood.
quote:
So since I know you will never change you mind on this issue, we have reached the best out come I could have hoped for, you are someone that is totally opposed and yet you can offer no countervailing evidence. Perfect!
You mean other than pointing out the fact that you have not shown any transportability figures for diatoms? And that you have presented no evidence of a global flood?
Really, wmscott, I hate to break this to you, but I really don't take your argument seriously enough to put much work into it at all. I think the lack of other posters to this board is evidence that others think the same way.
You still have not made the connection between aerial transport of diatoms and sand grains. In fact, I have come to doubt that you even have diatoms, or that you have accurately identified them. Your lack of geological background really causes me to question everything that you post here. Never mind that fact that this would hardly be evidence of a global flood. I have spent countless hours trying to give you an education in geology and help you review your ideas, but all you have done is put on the blinders and stomp your feet on the ground.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by wmscott, posted 11-19-2002 4:24 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by wmscott, posted 11-25-2002 4:01 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1819 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 24 of 234 (24292)
11-25-2002 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by wmscott
11-25-2002 4:01 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
On sandgrains/diatoms winding lofting, in earlier posts, I also referred to lofting of water droplets which are of course lighter than Diatoms and forams. But you seemed to have ignored that information as you do with much of what I post. For example, I have posted a great deal of evidence supporting the flood, yet you say I haven't posted any.
Nonsense, you have posted information in support of a slightly higher sea level after the ice age. Nothing more.
quote:
What you mean of course is that I haven't posted any evidence that you accept, and since you blindly reject anything that tends to support a global flood, you reject all the evidence I cite. Then you turn around and claim that the reason you don't believe what I am saying is because I haven't posted any supporting evidence. Basically this is on a level with you plugging your ears with wax and then complaining that I am not speaking loudly enough.
It is on a level with requesting information that supports your viewpoint of a worldwide flood.
quote:
The problem isn't on my end. With solving any puzzle, one has to take the pieces and see how they fit together to form a complete picture. But you keep tossing away the pieces before you can see how they fit and you are convinced that you already know what the picture looks like, and therefor my solution can't possibly be right and yet the pieces do fit. But convinced you already know better, you refuse to even take a look and I wonder why, perhaps a bit of fearful doubt perhaps?
More like frustration at not getting straight answers.
quote:
I am glad that you question my claim of finding marine diatoms here in the Midwest, for it means that you recognize the import of what it means even if you deny it.
Actually, it means that I recognize the possibility that you could be wrong about many other things such as whether these are actually marine diatoms. My interaction with you does not give me much confidence in your ability.
quote:
I have also enjoyed your refusal to look at any pictures of them, since that would make it harder for you to deny their existence. Just pointing out that I am not the one wearing the blinders.
Well, post them and I'll look at them, but I'm probably no better than you at telling what are diatoms and what are marine diatoms. Knowing how inaccurate you are regarding geological information, all I would suggest, however, that you might be wrong here.
Now, how about some evidence that a global flood actually happened?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by wmscott, posted 11-25-2002 4:01 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by wmscott, posted 11-28-2002 11:19 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1819 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 29 of 234 (24826)
11-28-2002 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by wmscott
11-28-2002 11:19 AM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
quote:
Nonsense, you have posted information in support of a slightly higher sea level after the ice age. Nothing more.
'Slightly higher'? We have been arguing about evidence of marine flooding in the Midwest at a location that is currently at an elevation of 1000 ft.
Hmm, not quite global yet, wmscott. First of all that doesn't even make it to Colorado. Second, those are modern elevations. Call when you get some real evidence.
quote:
Much of the earlier cited evidence on this thread was found at elevations of several thousand feet above current sea level.
Yes, as I remember they were in tectonically active areas. You went on to minimize the effect of plate tectonics after that.
quote:
If by 'slightly higher' you mean a few thousand feet, I guess we agree, it just depends on your definition of 'slight'.
Nothing concrete here, wmscott.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by wmscott, posted 11-28-2002 11:19 AM wmscott has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1819 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 30 of 234 (24925)
11-29-2002 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by wmscott
11-28-2002 11:19 AM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
'Slightly higher'? We have been arguing about evidence of marine flooding in the Midwest at a location that is currently at an elevation of 1000 ft.
I see that I am not getting through to you on this point that you have not presented evidence for a global flood. Let's try this: What if I contended that the evidence you have presented actually is evidence AGAINST a global flood, because you have not found such evidence at elevations higher than 1000 ft in North America. This would be just as valid as your assertion that a global flood is 'proven' by your discoveries.
In fact, as you collect more data, you must be prepared to find that you will actually disprove the global flood story! Does this not make sense? To take this a step further, I suggest that the only reason you can accept your findings as evidence for a global flood is your blind adherence to a myth.
This is why I reject your 'evidence' as supportive of a global flood hypothesis. It is completely inconclusive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by wmscott, posted 11-28-2002 11:19 AM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by wmscott, posted 11-29-2002 7:24 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1819 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 33 of 234 (25005)
11-29-2002 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Tranquility Base
11-29-2002 10:42 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
wmscott
The uniformitarian dception in 2 Pet 3 is 'everything goes on as it has since the beginning'. This is identical to 'the present is the key to the past'.
You have so much confidence in these mainstream analyses of rocks. Have you studied paleocurrents at all? Half the geo-col is turbidite deposits. Most is marine on land.
You have been asked repeatedly to support this statement. Please do so.
quote:
Why can't you see that mainstream geology could just be a calibration exercise to expectation? 'This looks most similar to a river delta so that's what it was.' What eveidence is there that it wasn't catastrophic draining of a flood surge erpoding soft sediments? NONE.
Nonsense. That is why we have peer reviewed literature. If there were any serious objections to whether a sequence was deltaic vs something else, it would become an open point of contention. Believe it or not some geologists take these details seriously. I know that you have a jaundiced view of science, but I have personally seen this happen.
Hmm, do I detect a littel bitterness here? Are you just a bit afraid of wmscott's ideas?
quote:
These things have never been seriously considered since the 19th century.
Sorry, but questioning the data goes on all the time. Unlike the field of creationism. I think you are projecting.
quote:
What of the huge freshwater beds of the Grand Canyon? Ferns strewn over thousands of square miles. No evidence of a river delta geometry.
Since when do river deltas require ferns? Really, do you have any idea what a river delta looks like in the geological record?
quote:
It was Genesis level catastrophic flooding.
Hey, you've convinced me. No matter that you haven't the vaguest understanding of geological processes, you must be correct.
[This message has been edited by edge, 11-29-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-29-2002 10:42 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-30-2002 3:18 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1819 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 38 of 234 (25030)
11-30-2002 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Tranquility Base
11-30-2002 3:18 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
If your statements are made in good faith then why do you deny that most beds could have been rapidly genernated?
Hunh? I don't know how much mor clearly I can say this. You cannot apply the concept of rapidly deposited sand laminations to major sandstone units or to other rock types. You are committing a logical fallacy to do so.
quote:
Let's not go and pick a problematic one for us - every theory has problematic aspects. Let's stick to the bread and butter of the geo-column. Let's pick most of the Grand Canyon strata.
What is stopping most of those layers being generated by erosion of recently laid soft sdiment?
You do not generate layers by erosion. You generate them by deposition. Your understanding of sedimentation is so convoluted that I doubt we can help you here.
quote:
[PS On the river delta point: how do you explain thousands of square miles of layered fresh-water deposits contiaining land plants? The only place thiscould happen is in a huge river delta but there is no sign of deltaic geometry in the freshwater layers of the Grand Canyon.]
Somehow, TB, I doubt that you have any idea what the geometry of a deltaic deposit is or what coalescing deltas would look like. I am not sure why a coastal plain at near base level could not generate such a deposit. But if you say so...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-30-2002 3:18 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Admin, posted 11-30-2002 2:03 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1819 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 47 of 234 (26468)
12-12-2002 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by wmscott
12-11-2002 6:06 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
...
quote:
these pictures are too dissimilar to conclude they're both of the same species of marine diatom (or even that they're both diatoms).
I am a little bit puzzled by your response. I assume you accept that the picture on the right is of the marine diatom Asterolampra Marylandica, you can check the web site that it is taken from if you doubt it. As for similarities, you need to remember that the two pictures were taken with two different microscopes under different lighting conditions, and the samples have had dissimilar histories. Notice the tannic acid staining in the left image, and that the diatom is not laying perfectly flat as in the picture on the right. The right image is also of a diatom in very good condition while the one on the left is worn and old.
Correct, wmscott, therefor we cannot ascertain that they are indeed the same organism... You have convinced me that the identification is completely inconclusive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by wmscott, posted 12-11-2002 6:06 PM wmscott has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1819 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 53 of 234 (26912)
12-16-2002 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Tranquility Base
12-16-2002 9:11 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
It's preciesely El Capitan that creationists suggest are transported and compactified marine creatures.
In case anyone wonders what the heck TB is talking about, TC has redefined 'in situ', 'in place' and now perhaps 'in growth position' to mean 'transported.' See, every one of those coral pieces in growth position has actually been transported who knows how far, and then miraculously replanted in the proper environment so that they can continue growing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-16-2002 9:11 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-16-2002 9:50 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1819 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 72 of 234 (28248)
01-01-2003 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by wmscott
01-01-2003 10:29 AM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
quote:
5. You need to explain why other geologists aren't finding marine diatoms in Wisconsin. Any paper you write would have to address this.
I would rather not have to, but you maybe right. It will make it all that much harder to get published if I also explain how I, without even a degree, caught all of science with it's collective paints down. This is really a major screw up of epic proportions, here for all these years a global flood has been written off as a myth and all it took to find the missing evidence was a microscope!
Ummmmmm, one minor detail here. Aren't you forgetting to provide evidence for a global flood? In the end, it doesn't matter whether your diatoms are marine or fresh or both. It doesn't matter if they are transported by wind, water or bicycle. It doesn't even matter if they are diatoms or glass beads. How can they possibly constitute evidence for a global flood? You need to fit this into a framework of data that support your conclusions. You have not done this.
quote:
That is going to go over real well. Perhaps if I tactfully explain how it took a specific search to find the marine diatoms, that it involved a muti step process of concentrating the sample, it will go over better. But truthfully, the process used was probably a simple version of the methods used on till samples in Antarctica. It no doubt was really just a matter of no one thinking to look, after all why would they, everyone already 'knew' what the results would be.
Wmscott, this is ridiculous. Even your photos have shown the identification, provenance and transport of the diatoms to be equivocal. You are going to be shredded if you publish this nonsense as evidence for a globabl flood. If you want to call it an unusual find of marine diatoms, fine; we will all congratulate you. But there is no evidence yet that any body of water covered the entire globe at one time. You cannot even show that catastrophic melting of the ice caps occurred, or that such an event would cover the earth with water. This is still untenable.
quote:
I have to admit you are probably right, I should be more receptive to good advice I receive. Sometimes when you are on the receiving end, it is hard to tell the constructive criticism from all the negative criticism.
When you continually ignore advice, it will eventually become very negative.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by wmscott, posted 01-01-2003 10:29 AM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by wmscott, posted 01-02-2003 4:07 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1819 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 74 of 234 (28332)
01-02-2003 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by wmscott
01-02-2003 4:07 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
quote:
"We can use brackish-water diatoms to reconstruct sea-level changes in the recent past," Introduction to Marine Micropaleontology, edited by Bilal U. Haq and Anne Boersma 1978, p.255
Marine traces such as marine diatoms can and routinely are used to map the extent of past marine transgressions. Once other possible transport mechanisms have been eliminated, marine flooding remains as the only viable answer. By sampling different locations and elevations, the size and extent of the marine flooding can be mapped.
But they have NOT been mapped. I'm not sure how much more clearly I can say this. When you do so map the world, then you will have evidence. A few occurrences at under a kilometer elevation simply does not do it. This is a silly waste of time. Go and get your data.
quote:
This is all basic geology Edge, facts are facts, if the evidence supports a recent global marine flood as having occurred, you will just have to learn to live with it.
There is no such evidence as yet.
quote:
The other issues have already been addressed in this thread at least once if not several times.
Irrelevant. The title of thise thread addresses evidence for a global flood. After so many pages, we have seen no such evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by wmscott, posted 01-02-2003 4:07 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by wmscott, posted 01-06-2003 3:59 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1819 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 76 of 234 (28338)
01-03-2003 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Percy
01-02-2003 8:35 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
You're kidding yourself. Your photos are of low quality and bear little resemblance to the reference photos. Your IDs appear to others as grasping at straws. You still haven't even convinced me you know the difference between a diatom and other forms of microscopic life. I accept consensus, and the only way to convince me is to convince others knowledgeable in the field.
You are correct. The wmscott samples bear only the grossest resemblance to the index specimens. It is also possible that the specimens he has shown us are transported as well. One is clearly broken some are possibly abraded. The photos are of quite poor quality, though. Hardly enough to support a challenging claim to the mainstream geological interpretation. In this case, I rather think that one must be convinced before seeing the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Percy, posted 01-02-2003 8:35 PM Percy has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1819 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 79 of 234 (28536)
01-06-2003 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by wmscott
01-06-2003 3:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
Dear Edge;
quote:
When you do so map the world, then you will have evidence. . . . Go and get your data.
I intend to do just that. But if I am able to map a global distribution of marine diatoms, will you accept that as evidence of a recent global flood?

It would be a major step. But you have to show hard evidence that the
diatoms are actually diatoms, that they are marine and that they are not somehow transported. They must also be found at virtually all elevations. THAT would be evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by wmscott, posted 01-06-2003 3:59 PM wmscott 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