Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,217 Year: 5,474/9,624 Month: 499/323 Week: 139/204 Day: 9/4 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood II
Percy
Member
Posts: 22695
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 4 of 234 (22270)
11-11-2002 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by doctrbill
11-10-2002 8:40 PM


That's a great article, but this may be the wrong thread for it because wmscott is an OEC. I'd sure like to see TB's reaction to it - maybe you could post the link in one of the threads where he's active.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by doctrbill, posted 11-10-2002 8:40 PM doctrbill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by wmscott, posted 11-11-2002 4:57 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22695
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 17 of 234 (22729)
11-14-2002 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by wmscott
11-11-2002 4:57 PM


wmscott writes:
Ah, the belief that the majority is always right, having the reassurance of being part of the herd, one's peer group, having everyone agree with your opinion.
In science, you place your entries into the arena of ideas where they are judged by your peers. Through a process of review, refinement, improvement and review, some of these ideas become accepted, meaning that they satisfy the preponderance of scientists qualified to have an opinion.
Proving a point of scientific debate is not dependent on how many believe it...
By "proving" you actually mean supporting your views with evidence. The strength of the evidence in large measure determines whether your ideas become accepted within the scientific community.
I would rather be right than popular.
The two are not disconnected. If your ideas are right, meaning that they're consistent with the known evidence, they will become, as you say, "popular", or to be more precise, "accepted".
As for improving my batting average, this board is only my sounding board...
More like your sounding-off board. You're ideas appear unaffected by feedback telling you where your ideas will have trouble becoming scientifically accepted. You either have to find additional evidence or modify your ideas.
Some examples taken from our own discussions:
  • Rafting. Seek examples in the news of rafted animals, particularly large ones, during floods.
  • World-wide water cover. There's just no evidence of this. It's obvious connection to the Biblical flood will cause automatic rejection of any papers you submit in scientific arenas.
  • Depression of sea floors and elevation of mountains. There's just no evidence of this. It, too, has an obvious connection to the Biblical flood will cause automatic rejection of any papers you submit in scientific arenas.
  • Sub-glacial water causing world-wide flood. This just doesn't seem possible. There was recent scientific news about uncovering evidence that the massive collapse and concurrent release of water beneath a Canadian glacier near the St. Laurence around 10K years ago caused sea-levels world-wide to rise 1 meter. You need far more water than that. You also need to explain why we can find evidence of a release raising sea-levels 1 meter, but no evidence of a far, far larger release raising sea levels hundreds of meters.
  • Transport of diatoms. These are so small, so light, so easily transported, your claims just make no common sense. Comparing them to far more dense sand-grains seems especially nonsensical.
  • Comets. They were supposedly massive, causing the simultaneous collapse of entire ice sheets with the release of enough water to flood the world. Where's the evidence? Craters? Isotopic signatures? Anything concrete at all?
Unless you have evidence, papers mentioning any of these possibilities that are submitted to any non-Creationist journal will be rejected.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by wmscott, posted 11-11-2002 4:57 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by wmscott, posted 11-19-2002 4:27 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22695
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 21 of 234 (23304)
11-19-2002 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by wmscott
11-19-2002 4:27 PM


You're missing the point. I was not trying to reengage in discussion on those topics. I was merely listing some of the topics for which you've been ignoring feedback from your so-called "sounding board." We're aware that your positions are unlikely to change. I'm sure you'll continue to find this board a valuable tool for honing your talent for ignoring extensive cross-functional interlocking real-world evidence while finding support in irrelevant minutia and absence of evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by wmscott, posted 11-19-2002 4:27 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by wmscott, posted 11-25-2002 4:06 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22695
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 25 of 234 (24297)
11-25-2002 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by wmscott
11-25-2002 4:06 PM


As I said months ago, I don't think it's possible change your opinions, so I don't see the point in persisting along that avenue.
You should be asking yourself why what seems so obvious to you is not obvious to anyone else. This isn't a case where some people accept your views and some don't. It's a case where no one accepts your views.
What I've been saying is that I think you should take stock and consider at length why this is. Are your explanations insufficient? Is your evidence too weak? Would another perspective help? Should you seek assistance from other Creationists? Reread Kuhn and study Popper? In other words, you need to spend some time figuring out why other people just aren't getting it. If it were just me and some others rejecting your views then you could perhaps make a case for intransigence and bias, but even your fellow Creationists aren't buying it.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by wmscott, posted 11-25-2002 4:06 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by wmscott, posted 11-28-2002 11:21 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22695
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 35 of 234 (25013)
11-30-2002 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by wmscott
11-28-2002 11:21 AM


wmscott writes:
So don't be fooled by the lack of enthusiasm from the YECs here on the board, the off board response from OECs has been very favorable.
I can only judge by what I see, and I have seen no support from any quarter for your views.
One of the main reasons I post here is that if I have made a mistake, someone will point it out to me.
Not only will, but already have, many times.
I feel that if people like you, who are very much opposed to any notion of a global flood, are unable to find specific flaws...
Like you, w_fortenberry never accepted the flaws pointed out in his geocentric theory. Should our failure to convince him be the measure of his theory? I think you would agree not. The oft repeated pattern here is that the flaws in your theory and deficiencies in your evidence are identified, followed by your patient explanation that you don't agree. Should our failure to convince you be the measure of your theory? You must again agree not.
The measure of an idea is not the fervor with which it is held by its primary advocates, for by that measure your Biblical flood theory, w_fortenberry's geocentric theory, TB's paleocurrent theory, the hydroplate theory and so forth, would all be considered powerful theories. The true measure of an idea is its power to persuade others through its cogency and supporting evidence, and by this measure all these ideas fail.
These reasons are why I think it would help you a great deal, especially after so lengthy a fruitless discussion, to go through a period of reflection and self-examination.
By the way, I am by no means opposed to the idea of a global flood. It would be wonderful and exciting to have a new perspective to explore, a fresh paradigm for interpreting the evidence. But your ideas have so little evidence that anyone who could be convinced of your ideas today would be convinced by somebody else tomorrow and yet someone else the next day. He would be a person whose views change with every breeze. This is not the kind of adherent you want.
One game I play to help myself assess the degree of my own bias is to pretend that I want to convince someone else of the idea. Is the evidence that has been presented to me sufficient to the point that I could persuade others? In the case of your ideas, I don't believe I could convince even a 10-year old that elephants and giraffes rafted through the flood, and I would expect guffaws from adults. I *do* think I could convince any 10-year old of many of your other ideas, and even a fair number of adults, but I don't believe I'd have a chance of persuading any adult with a science background.
It is impossible to change a person's mind when they can't even conceive of the possibility that they mite be wrong.
I have been wrong so many times that I have no trouble accepting I will be wrong many times again. But it would be a mistake to accept your ideas today, indeed any ideas based on so little evidence and with so much contrary evidence. Even if your ideas eventually prove to be true, I would still be able to look back at this period and see that rejecting your ideas was correct at the time because they were largely unsupported then.
For example look at the pictures in my post to Edge, photographic evidence and yet it will no doubt not be enough to convince ether of you.
In order to judge your photographic evidence you need to provide the pictures you compared to from your diatom book. But no one except you thinks it unusual for extremely tiny marine diatoms (the pictures say magnification is 1000x) to be transported thousands of miles by wind and rain.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by wmscott, posted 11-28-2002 11:21 AM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by wmscott, posted 12-02-2002 5:17 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22695
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 42 of 234 (26043)
12-09-2002 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by wmscott
12-02-2002 5:17 PM


wmscott writes:
Elephants and giraffes did not need to be rafted through the flood, there was an ark.
I repeat my earlier statement - if I tried to convince others of this I would be met with guffaws. This is why I keep urging reflection on your part. You have to ask yourself why this explanation is unacceptable to the scientists you want to persuade. Ask yourself if you've responded with effective evidence and argumentation for the problems that are usually raised with ark proposals. Ask yourself searching questions about how your idea is scientific if religious affiliation and degree of familiarity with science are the primary determinants for its acceptance.
The reference I used for identification was mainly "Diatoms of North America" by William C. Vineyard, published by MadRiverPress@msn.com, costs about 12 dollars. Here is a picture I got off the web of one of the Diatoms I posted earlier, Asterolampra Marylandica.
Let's put the two pictures side by side, yours on the left and the reference photograph on the right (click on them for enlarged versions):
I'm going to assume at the outset that I won't be able to convince you that these pictures are too disimilar to conclude they're both of the same species of marine diatom (or even that they're both diatoms). But what I *will* do is say that you need to produce photographs sufficiently similar that other people would be convinced. Moving on to the other photograph:
Here is a picture of Thalassionema Nitzchioldes, I was disappointed that the small end spine is not visible. There is a better view of it in "Diatoms of North America" on page 103, drawing 104a.
These, too, are far too dissimilar to convince anyone that they're the same diatom.
In addition to reliable identifications of diatoms, you also need radiocarbon dating so that you know whether the diatoms are from last week, last year, or the last ice age.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by wmscott, posted 12-02-2002 5:17 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by wmscott, posted 12-11-2002 6:06 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22695
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 45 of 234 (26411)
12-12-2002 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by wmscott
12-11-2002 6:06 PM


wmscott writes:
This is a side issue for a later time, but let me say there is evidence that indicates that there really was a literal ark.
You *do* understand that such evidence would be huge news world-wide?
As for "religious affiliation" or a "degree of familiarity with science" being needed for acceptance of my theory. I would have to say a basic understanding of science is necessary for accepting my flood theory rather than a religious outlook.
Check out the stats at Message 64 of the What I have noticed about these debates... thread in the Faith and Belief forum.
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...etc...
I haven't looked through a microscope since high school, I don't know what tannic acid staining looks like or what tannic acid is, and I have no experience identifying damaged and long-dead diatoms. All I know is what I see. The reference diatom has seven spokes, while your photo of something appears to contain two or perhaps three or perhaps four prongs, and has no other identifiable features in common with the reference photo. I do not know if this is what an Asterolampra Marylandica looks like after 10,000 years.
You're taking your arguments to the wrong audience. Even if you're precisely right, you aren't right in a scientific sense until you achieve consensus. You need others in the field to confirm your identification. Put this in a paper and submit it. Call it "Marine Diatoms in Post Ice-Age Wisconsin." This is how you start, with a small set of data in one tiny branch of one field of science.
Hey, you geologists out there, know anyone skilled at identifying diatoms?
I agree with you on the desirability of having better pictures, posting them seems to have had a bigger impact than I had thought.
Naturally the impact of actual evidence like photographs is greater, but it is not by itself sufficient. When I read a geology textbook that says something like, "An inland sea separated east and west North America millions of years ago," I accept it because I believe the evidence has been examined by many geologists and that the statement represents a consensus of opinion. But when you say, "I have pictures of diatoms supporting a recent sea inundation in Wisconsin 10,000 years ago," naturally we're skeptical, because only you have made the diatom identifications, and only you have speculated about conclusions based on your identifications.
BTW, I suggest putting comparison photos side-by-side.
Carbon dating diatoms? Dating an individual diatom is of course impossible, they are far to small and being comprised of silicon have little or no carbon to date. Dating of diatoms is generally done by dating the material they are found in, dating the soil here is a no brainier since this is a glacial till soil area created by the Wisconsin Ice Age.
You also have moraines in Wisconsin from ice ages prior to the most recent, so your till could be older.
Some idea of how long they have been here can be inferred from amount of tannic acid staining seen in some of the diatoms. That brackets the time occurrence of a marine transgression to between the end of the last ice age and a time long enough ago for tannic acid to stain glassy diatoms.
How long is that?
Then there are the historical accounts that don't mention such flooding which a major rise in sea level would need to predate.
Given the evidence we have for wind transport of diatoms, for example the paper about Antarctica discussed earlier this year, you first have to establish that your diatoms could not have arrived via wind before you can make an argument based on an inundation of the sea into Wisconsin.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by wmscott, posted 12-11-2002 6:06 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by wmscott, posted 12-16-2002 4:57 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22695
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 46 of 234 (26424)
12-12-2002 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by wmscott
12-11-2002 6:06 PM


Here's yet another reference, this one from GSA Today, about wind-blown diatoms:
They can also be transported by glaciers, as in another article in the same issue titled Glacial Transport of Diatoms in the Antarctic Sirius Group: Pliocene Refrigerator.
Before citing the presence of marine diatoms (if this is indeed what they are) in Wisconsin as evidence of a sea inundation there 10,000 years ago, you must first eliminate the more pedestrian possibilities of eolian and glacial transport.
--Percy

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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22695
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 60 of 234 (27614)
12-21-2002 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by wmscott
12-16-2002 4:57 PM


wmscott writes:
quote:
You *do* understand that such evidence would be huge news world-wide
You would think so, my book sales say otherwise.
Interest in the topic is enormous. Your book sales are telling you something about your book.
Look at the spacing of the spokes, not all of them are visible, judging by the spacing the original number was the same as the reference diatom.
The spacing of the two visible prongs in your photograph is closer together and would yield 9 or 10 prongs, not the 7 of the reference photograph. The prongs do not have the same shape. Most of the prongs, if they were ever present, are missing. None of the other structures from the reference photo are evident in your photo, such as the narrow innter prongs. I can only make a visual comparison, and on that basis these two photos do not appear at all alike. Here they are again just so people know which photos we're talking about:
As diatoms go, this one is very clear cut, did you look at the picture of diatoms in that article you posted? My picture here is much better than theirs.
Your photo is a closeup of a single something, perhaps a diatom, while theirs is a distance shot of a clast containing "abundant fragments of diatoms, as well as high numbers of Thalassionema sp. and Thalassiothrix sp." Even so, you can still make out a number of sticklike figures that must be the Thassalionema (here's the link to the article again: Page not found | Stanford School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences) and which correspond very well, at least at a distance, with the reference photo you provided (shown on right), which is far more than your own photograph (shown on left):
Maybe you are right about doing an article on diatoms in Wisconsin till. I have been working on the idea of a wide survey from many sites which would be much more convincing than results based on a small area. I will have to give your idea some thought.
I hope you do.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by wmscott, posted 12-16-2002 4:57 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by wmscott, posted 12-22-2002 2:51 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22695
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 64 of 234 (27706)
12-23-2002 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by wmscott
12-22-2002 2:51 PM


wmscott writes:
The diatom in my picture is not laying flat, it is tipped at an angle which alters the appearance of the spacing.
Human visual perception has no problem making distance assessments with perspective. That is why the tick marks at the top of a clock face when viewed from the side seem the same distance apart as those on the sides. Here are the photos again, yours on the left, the reference photo on the right:
Your problem is not to convince non-experts such as myself that you've made a proper identification. To my inexpert eye these do not appear to be very similar. I suggest you put your findings in a paper. Or just include them in a letter to an expert in the field, perhaps the authors of one of your reference books. As I keep saying, perhaps your picture is precisely what a Asterolampra Marylandica looks like after 10,000 years, but how would *I* know. It does you no good to press non-experts about this. To the untrained eye the two photos don't resemble each other. To the trained eye maybe the resemblance is striking, but I don't have a trained eye, and you've provided no hint that you do, either.
But the overall structure is still visible and matches the reference diatom better than the "sticklike figures that must be the Thassalionema." As you pointed out, my shot is a picture of a single diatom which makes identification much easier than a jumbled distant group shot.
Well, of course a close-up makes identification easier, but the article with the photo (Page not found | Stanford School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences) was simply presenting a picture of a diatom-filled clast, not attempting to justify diatom identifications as you are. As they say in the article, "Diatoms within the Sirius Group have been found at 12 of 14 localities sampled, in varying abundance (Harwood, 1986a, 1986b). They commonly are highly fragmented as both isolated clasts in the matrix and within clasts of diatomite up to 240 mm in diameter (Figs. 3, 4)." And so they provided a picture of a clast in Figure 4. They were not writing an article about identifying fossil diatom species.
I will make you an offer, I would be willing to drop my claim of identification of this diatom, if you can offer a better identification. If it is not what I claim, show me what it really is then. For if the one thing in the universe that it most resembles is a Asterolampra Marylandica, then that is what it must be.
First, the logic in this is completely backwards from a scientific perspective. And second, once again you're asking the wrong person. What weight do you think it would carry if you convinced people here. There you are presenting your paper to an audience of geologists and saying, "The people over at EvC Forum are convinced that my diatom identifications are correct." Yeah, that will carry a lot of weight.
I suggest you consult knowledgeable people. I also suggest you gather more samples to strengthen your identification, ie, replication.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by wmscott, posted 12-22-2002 2:51 PM wmscott has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22695
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 67 of 234 (27803)
12-24-2002 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by wmscott
12-22-2002 2:51 PM


Here are some additional diatom candidates, assuming your picture is of an actual diatom:
Plate P4.
The splines of the Asterolampra marylandica appear sufficiently different in this photo as to actively discourage your ID. On the other hand, the splines of the Asteromphalus heptactis have the same apparent shape as those that can be made out in your photo, and the splines are not equally spaced, removing the issue about number of splines.
My own opinion is that your photo is not of sufficient quality to allow any definite identification whatsoever, at least not by a non-expert. I know I'm repeating myself, but identification becomes a real skill when an object may have been greatly modified by time and the elements. How do you even know your object is a diatom and not some other of the infinite forms of microscopic life? Even if you had a positive ID you've still got the age problem to solve. And you need more than a single sample of each diatom type to have convincing IDs.
I don't think your photos and and the reference photos look much like each other. If they're actually of the same diatoms then you need confirmation by an expert, not by EvC Forum members.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by wmscott, posted 12-22-2002 2:51 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by wmscott, posted 12-27-2002 10:13 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22695
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 69 of 234 (28066)
12-29-2002 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by wmscott
12-27-2002 10:13 AM


You're focusing on the incidental content in my posts to you. The specifics of diatom IDs by non-experts such as you or me are unimportant. It is your general approach and methods that are questionable. Diatom IDs are but one example of your general problem, and they are instructively helpful in pointing out the inadequacies of your approach because they are indicative of the types of deficiencies prevalent in all your ideas:
  1. You have to establish that what you're looking at is a diatom. If there was a strong resemblance between your photo and the reference photo then this question would be satisfied, but there is no such resemblance.
  2. Once you've established it's a diatom, you have to establish the type of the diatom. Given the great disparity in appearance, you are not going to convince anyone that you've made an unequivocal ID.
  3. You have to establish the origin of the diatom, ie, whether it was wind, glacier or otherwise transported.
  4. You have to establish the age of the diatom. That there is apparently no way to do this does not diminish its importance.
  5. You need to explain why other geologists aren't finding marine diatoms in Wisconsin. Any paper you write would have to address this.
The conversation you should be having with yourself should go something like this: "This is obvious to me, but how do I go about making it obvious to others?" As I keep telling you, determined repetition of your position is not going to work. You need more evidence.
It seems to be quite valuable to air my theories in a hostile environment and see what has holes in it. That way I will hopefully look like less of a fool when I try and publish this stuff.
This is not a hostile environment. As I've said several times already, many of us would welcome a new perspective to explore, a fresh paradigm for interpreting the evidence. How exciting it would be! We're objecting not to your ideas, but to your inability to recognize the insufficiency of your evidence. People in the habit of accepting ideas with such poor evidence as you have also accept the evidence for ESP, flying saucers and spoon bending.
You *will* look the fool if you insist on not listening to the helpful feedback you're getting here. When your paper on the identification of marine diatoms in Wisconsin is rejected, are you planning to do the same thing you do here and write them back asking, "Well, if it isn't an Asterolampra marylandica, then *you* tell me what it is." Yeah, that'll go over *real* big.
Your real problem is that you're treating the feedback you're getting here as hostile, biased criticism to be turned aside, rather than a helpful guide for where to turn your efforts. Unless you change your approach your theory has no prayer of accomplishing what all successful theories do: persuade.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by wmscott, posted 12-27-2002 10:13 AM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by forgiven, posted 12-29-2002 5:39 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 71 by wmscott, posted 01-01-2003 10:29 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22695
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 75 of 234 (28334)
01-02-2003 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by wmscott
01-01-2003 10:29 AM


wmscott writes:
I don't think that your being able to reach a pretty good identification is incidental, I was impressed by the quality of your effort and it illustrated what I have been saying all along about how almost any one can do this if they try.
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.
Why don't you perform an experiment. Take samples from five sites you believe underlay the Biblical flood, and five sites you believe did not (perhaps old farm plots now lying fallow), then study the differences in diatom populations. If you can create a situation where you don't know where each sample is from while you look at it under the microscope that would be a big plus. Certainly your paper would have to show that you only find marine diatoms in former Biblical flood sea-bottom and not anywhere else.
In our discussion I thought we had cleared that up, that link to that article you posted was quite clear on the matter...etc...
When you draw conclusions from technical articles that seem at odds with the articles themselves I no longer try to argue with you.
As stated earlier, the time of deposition is bracketed by the retreat of the last glacial advance that left behind the till found here, and our own knowledge of the history of sea level changes.
As stated earlier, there were earlier glacier advances and retreats. And as also stated earlier, you can't use sea level changes as an argument since there not only is no evidence they caused the Wisconsin inundation, there isn't even any evidence of an inundation. And as both I and edge have pointed out several times recently, even if your diatom ID is correct, you have to establish that they could not have arrived there by any other means except Biblical flood.
Thanks for fixing the link, I had seen that page before, the unevenness you referred to is apparently an individual flaw rather than a species trait.
Perhaps, but to me this appears to be yet another example of you drawing conclusions with no supporting evidence.
We know this all appears obvious to you. Your problem is to figure out how to make it obvious to others. Perhaps we're the wrong audience. Perhaps when you put your photo before an actual geologist with diatom experience he'll say, "My God, a Asterolampra marylandica in Wisconsin, this overturns everything we thought we knew about geology!" Unless you actually do change your ways and start listening and responding to the feedback, I'm not sure it makes any sense to waste your time here with people who wouldn't know a diatom from popcorn.
--Percy

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 76 by edge, posted 01-03-2003 12:07 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 78 by wmscott, posted 01-06-2003 4:01 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22695
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 81 of 234 (28590)
01-07-2003 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by wmscott
01-06-2003 4:01 PM


wmscott writes:
Now Percy, my photos were of good enough quality that you were able to make a fair identification without even having a background in marine biology.
I think you persist in seeing what you want to see. As I have said several times now, you haven't yet convinced me your pictures are of diatoms, or even that you can tell the difference between diatoms and other forms of microscopic life. I certainly know that I cannot. Your photos are of such poor quality that identification will inevitably be ambiguous.
I also still fail to see the point in convincing non-experts. To me the photos don't much resemble each other. Perhaps in the eyes of an expert the resemblance is striking, and I recommend you stop wasting your time here and put your photos before an expert.
What I learned from those negative tests is that the marine diatoms occur as a trace surface deposit and are not mixed in the soil in general.
A trace surface deposit that lies undisturbed for 10,000 years? Nobody ever walked there? Nothing ever grew there? No flood ever washed over it? No earthworms disturbed the soil? Animals never roamed there? Your unbelievable premises are supported by even less believable evidence.
This pattern of occurrence indicates a brief marine submergence...
To everyone else the pattern indicates recent import by eolian means.
quote:
When you draw conclusions from technical articles that seem at odds with the articles themselves I no longer try to argue with you.
Percy, that is a lie. I would suggest you retract your statement or substantiate it by showing how I misunderstood that last article you posted the link to.
To disagree with you is to lie?
Since you believe the article supports your views, a more productive approach than wasting your time with the ignorant liars here would be to contact the authors and describe your diatom findings in Wisconsin.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by wmscott, posted 01-06-2003 4:01 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by wmscott, posted 01-10-2003 4:28 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22695
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 84 of 234 (28832)
01-10-2003 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by wmscott
01-10-2003 4:28 PM


wmscott writes:
Lying is not disagreeing with me Percy, it is misstating the facts when you are aware you are doing it.
You seem to be forgetting that, as I have stated several times now, I not only don't accept your diatom IDs, I'm not even convinced you can tell diatoms from other forms of microscopic life.
On page 5 the article states "empty valves of freshwater diatoms are common components in aerosol samples and can be transported around the globe, but these particles are typically <25 evidence.
As I've also said several times now, when you draw conclusions from technical articles that seem at odds with the articles themselves I no longer try to argue with you. After all the time that has passed in this discussion I do not believe it is within my power to persuade you of anything, something I have also said before. All I said I would do is help you compose a paper by pointing out where I thought your evidence was weak or didn't support your arguments and so forth.
I don't find your evidence persuasive, not even remotely. It doesn't even seem to me that you're on to something interesting or that needs investigating. You seem to believe that experienced geologists would be more receptive to your evidence, and that's why I suggest you present your evidence to those you believe more qualified to evaluate it. Why are your wasting your time trying to convince laymen when you believe genuine scientists would be more understanding and receptive, especially since you don't seem interested in accepting feedback from laymen?
I believe you are seeing in that article (Glacial Transport of Diatoms in the Antarctic Sirius Group: Pliocene Refrigerator) what you want to see. Your excerpt refers to freshwater diatoms, not marine. Is there a difference in windborne distribution of marine versus freshwater? I don't know.
Your excerpt also mentions that the authors don't believe eolian transport was a realistic possibility for particles greater than 100 um. How big are your diatoms? The pictures at Plate P4. say it's about 30 um for an Asterolampra marylandica and about 60 um for an Asteromphalus heptactis. And as I keep saying, I don't even accept your diatom identifications, or that they even *are* diatoms.
So if you want to believe the article rules out eolian transport for whatever it is you think you have pictures of then I will not try to dissuade you. Your goal here should be to hone your evidence and arguments in preparation for presentation in a formal scientific setting, but rather than responding constructively to the feedback you instead argue that we don't know what we're talking about, or even worse, are lying. As I keep saying (I ought'a put that phrase on a hotkey), you should be asking yourself, "This is obvious to me, how do I go about making it obvious to others?" I don't think your current course is likely to provide an answer to this question.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by wmscott, posted 01-10-2003 4:28 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by wmscott, posted 01-15-2003 4:41 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