PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     ye-geology

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Joe Meert

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And if 'ye-geology' fell by the wayside 150+ years ago, why is it alive and thriving today?

JM: Let's examine this statement.  A quick search on georef shows that Ye-creationism is mentioned in only a few editorial pieces, there are no scientific articles about ye-creationism in the scientific literature.  Perhaps even more telling regarding the bankruptcy of ye-views is that they are not used in the oil, gas and mining industries.  These money hungry behemoths don't give a rats patoot about the philosophical ramifications of the science and if ye-creationist geology were a thriving and useful enterprise, they would adopt it at the drop of a hat.  Yet, no oil companies work under the ye-geological framework for good reason.  It is a poor investment.

CHeers

Joe Meert
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 08:25 AM on April 29, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Testimony of a young-earth  geophysicist

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry.  I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question.  One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!'  A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute.  There has to be one!"  But he could not name one.  I can not name one.  No one else could either.  One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry.  I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:12 AM on April 29, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Excellent article!  Thanks for sharing that.
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 12:14 PM on April 29, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote: JM: Let's examine this statement.  A quick search on georef shows that Ye-creationism is mentioned in only a few editorial pieces, there are no scientific articles about ye-creationism in the scientific literature.  Perhaps even more telling regarding the bankruptcy of ye-views is that they are not used in the oil, gas and mining industries.  These money hungry behemoths don't give a rats patoot about the philosophical ramifications of the science and if ye-creationist geology were a thriving and useful enterprise, they would adopt it at the drop of a hat.  Yet, no oil companies work under the ye-geological framework for good reason.  It is a poor investment.


This is very true. I'm waiting for a substanciated response from one of our young earth friends on this issue.

I know they won't forget to discuss the economic application of fossils in Oil Exploration either, for example Foraminifera, when responding  


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 7:35 PM on April 29, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

JM: A quick search on georef shows that Ye-creationism is mentioned in only a few editorial pieces, there are no scientific articles about ye-creationism in the scientific literature.

A quick search of www.lilithfair.com shows that there are very few articles on male musicians, and that any mention of male musicians is in passing when speaking of female musicians.  Does this prove that male musicians are inferior to female musicians?  Absolutely not.  All it proves is that lilithfair is exclusionary to male musicians.  

In the same way, the common perception of the 'scientific' world is that science is exclusionary to the supernatural.  It is not surprising that an evolution-paradigmed publication would reflect that perception.  However, this does not prove or disprove evolution or creation, old earth or young earth.  It simply demonstrates the exclusionary nature of the publication.

Let me ask you, JM - how many cristian science journals (such as TJ) do you read regularly?  For example, I frequently visit the TalkOrigins site to see what the evolutionary paradigm has to say about the articles, papers, and forums I read.

JM: Perhaps even more telling regarding the bankruptcy of ye-views is that they are not used in the oil, gas and mining industries.

Do a lot of energy executives go against their 'science/geological' advisors recomendations?  The majority of geologists that get attention and are 'respected' in the scientific comunity (which we have already discussed is exclusionary to creation and the supernatural) who become elegible for these jobs don't persue ideas that go against the evolutionary paradigm.  

On the other hand, sometimes creationists manage to build enough irrifutable evidence as to tople long standing evolutionary insitutional beliefs.  Often, creationists will proclaim certain theories that are ignored for years - then when someone presents it in a humanist paradigm it's hailed as breakthrough and revolutionary.  (for example, take R. Humphreys and his cosmology, and the recent stoller/temple paper and it's effects as the tide turns on long standing 'big bang' theories).  

An example of this (as it directly relates to your question of oil and gas) is oil and gas seeps.
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 10:33 PM on April 29, 2004 | IP
Joe Meert

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gup20 at 10:33 PM on April 29, 2004 :

A quick search of www.lilithfair.com shows that there are very few articles on male musicians, and that any mention of male musicians is in passing when speaking of female musicians.  Does this prove that male musicians are inferior to female musicians?  Absolutely not.  All it proves is that lilithfair is exclusionary to male musicians.  


JM: You should have researched things a little more.  The scientific literature is not exclusionary to creationists, it is exclusionary to poorly documented science.  YE-creationists such as Baumgarnder, Austin, Woodmorappe (under his real name Jan Peczkis), Humphreys and Gentry all have published in the mainstream literature.   While one might question the hypocrisy of Woodmorappe and Baumgardner who author old earth evolutionary articles, Austin has published on evidence supporting the biblical earthquake described in Amos (International Geology Reviews).  Furthermore, Austin, Wise and Humphreys all make regular appearances at Geological Society of America meetings and American Geophysical Union meetings.  So, while you may have some conspiracy theory ingrained in your head, the evidence suggests that there is no a priori bias against ye-creationists or their science providing it's well documented.  It's the ye-creationists who refuse to enter the real world of science and take the criticisms that come to everyone who tries to publish.

In the same way, the common perception of the 'scientific' world is that science is exclusionary to the supernatural.  It is not surprising that an evolution-paradigmed publication would reflect that perception.  However, this does not prove or disprove evolution or creation, old earth or young earth.  It simply demonstrates the exclusionary nature of the publication.


JM: Yes, you've made this assertion already.  You've simply not backed it up.  The evidence suggests otherwise.

Let me ask you, JM - how many cristian science journals (such as TJ) do you read regularly?  For example, I frequently visit the TalkOrigins site to see what the evolutionary paradigm has to say about the articles, papers, and forums I read.


JM: While I would not refer to those as science journals (because they lack rigor and peer review), I do read TJ and the material offered up on the AIG and ICR websites regularly.  Although a few of the articles have something genuinely interesting to say, most are simply reacting to something published elsewhere.  I see very little in the way of cutting-edge research and I certainly note that the authors mostly prefer the comfort of automatic publication.  An excellent example of what passes for 'scholarly research' at TJ was the article by Walker criticizing a picture on a website (see:
Geology at 200 dpi


Do a lot of energy executives go against their 'science/geological' advisors recomendations?  The majority of geologists that get attention and are 'respected' in the scientific comunity (which we have already discussed is exclusionary to creation and the supernatural) who become elegible for these jobs don't persue ideas that go against the evolutionary paradigm.  


JM: You show your naivete about the petroleum industry.  If a geologist could demonstrate drilling success using witchcraft and sorcery, they would adopt it.  The executives care about the bottom line.  If creationist geology were superior to old earth evolution, it would be adopted in a heartbeat.  As you can see from Morton's experience, ye-creation geology is bankrupt.

On the other hand, sometimes creationists manage to build enough irrifutable evidence as to tople long standing evolutionary insitutional beliefs.


JM: Example please?  Remember if you want to get noticed in science, then you must submit your work for criticism and evaluation.  To the best of my knowledge no ye-creationist has made any breakthroughs that would topple evolution and replace it with 150+ year old superstition.


  (for example, take R. Humphreys and his cosmology, and the recent stoller/temple paper and it's effects as the tide turns on long standing 'big bang' theories).  


JM: Which peer-reviewed scientific journal did Humphreys publish his cosmology in?  If it is as poorly researched as his magnetic field stuff (see

Humphreys mistakes in paleomagnetism

then I'll not hold my breath waiting for it to be heralded as the next breakthrough.

Cheers

Joe Meert

(Edited by Joe Meert 4/30/2004 at 09:34 AM).
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 08:29 AM on April 30, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh well, no responses on the Forams then  

I read your link there Gup20.

Amongst other things, I found the bit on Dolines to be quite entertaining... rubbishing the whole concept of karst geology with one example. Impressive.

Oh, Mr. Silvestru needs to read up on sedimentary infill before he writes another piece like that.

Well, for starters that is!

(Edited by OccamsRazor 4/30/2004 at 6:20 PM).


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 6:19 PM on April 30, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

JM:  the evidence suggests that there is no a priori bias against ye-creationists or their science providing it's well documented.

Evidence?  What evidence do you speak of?  I thought that "A quick search on georef shows that Ye-creationism is mentioned in only a few editorial pieces, there are no scientific articles about ye-creationism in the scientific literature."  

JM: You've simply not backed it up.  The evidence suggests otherwise.

Again here you mention evidence that there is not a bias against YE-creationists.  However, statements such as "bankruptcy of ye-views" and "It's the ye-creationists who refuse to enter the real world of science" clearly shows otherwise.  Clearly you are assigning a derrogitory to an entire group of people.  On this message board, I have found that to be common amoung those with the evolutionary paradigm.  

JM: Remember if you want to get noticed in science, then you must submit your work for criticism and evaluation.  To the best of my knowledge no ye-creationist has made any breakthroughs that would topple evolution and replace it with 150+ year old superstition

Your case for a lack of bias continues to weaken.  

JM: If creationist geology were superior to old earth evolution, it would be adopted in a heartbeat.

So it is your argument is that greedy, corrupt energy executives don't accept the Bible's account, therefore proof positive against creation?  What was it you were saying about 'scholarly research'?  (that was a rhetorical question).

JM: Examples Please.

I did give you one, which you responded to.  Dr. Russel Humphreys has written several books... and has been published in the peer-reviewed journals, TJ and Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, Creation Research Society Quarterly, etc.  

Humphreys took the approach towards the 'big bang' cosmology that it had a center and an edge... going against long standing beliefs on big bang theory.  Recently even those with evolutionary paradigms have begun to lean towards this concept.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 11:29 PM on April 30, 2004 | IP
Joe Meert

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gup20 at 11:29 PM on April 30, 2004 :

Evidence?  What evidence do you speak of?  I thought that "A quick search on georef shows that Ye-creationism is mentioned in only a few editorial pieces, there are no scientific articles about ye-creationism in the scientific literature."  


JM: Follow closely. I noted that articles about ye-creationism are missing, but not necessarily ye-creation authors.  Austin, Baumgardner and Woodmorappe (aka Jan Peczkis) all have published in the scientific literature.  This means there is no bias against ye-creationists.  It does suggest that these authors are not submitting their articles to mainstream journals for publication.


Again here you mention evidence that there is not a bias against YE-creationists.  However, statements such as "bankruptcy of ye-views" and "It's the ye-creationists who refuse to enter the real world of science" clearly shows otherwise.  


JM: I am commenting on the material I've seen in TJ, CENTJ and on websites such as AIG and ICR.  They are, nearly all, poorly documented, scientifically incorrect and unreviewed.  My prejudice is against bad science, the source is irrelevant (I've rejected any number of conventional geology papers for the same reasons).


Clearly you are assigning a derrogitory to an entire group of people.  On this message board, I have found that to be common amoung those with the evolutionary paradigm.  


JM: Yes, I am being derogatory (you cannot assign derogatory) to bad scientists no matter their religious background.  It just so happens that we are talking about ye-creationists in this conversation, but my 'prejudice' against bad science is universal.


Your case for a lack of bias continues to weaken.  


JM: Actually, it is still as strong as ever.  You've just confused my point.  Bad science is bad science.  Creationists refuse to submit their science to mainstream journals preferring to publish them in uncritically reviewed literature and then whine about a bias that has never been demonstrated.  


So it is your argument is that greedy, corrupt energy executives don't accept the Bible's account, therefore proof positive against creation?


JM: No, that's not what I said.   Many oil company executives are Christians and they don't use creationist geology because it is innaccurate and poorly documented.  It is not a fruitful scientific venture.  If it was, then it would be adopted since industry is about the bottom line.


I did give you one, which you responded to.  Dr. Russel Humphreys has written several books... and has been published in the peer-reviewed journals, TJ and Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, Creation Research Society Quarterly, etc.  


JM: Those 'journals' adhere to a code that states that all science must be fit to the bible.  The journals therefore force the authors to make the science fit rather than lead where the data take them.  They are critically reviewed only in the sense that the science must be biblically sound (not the same as scientifically sound).  Bottom line is that if Humphreys wants to be taken seriously then he must act like any other scientist and submit his work for criticism.  Otherwise, his work is useless.  I've noted elsewhere that he is either dishonest in his presentation or simply does not understand the basic science of geomagnetism.

Cheers

Joe Meert
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 1:23 PM on May 1, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

JM: Follow closely. I noted that articles about ye-creationism are missing, but not necessarily ye-creation authors.  Austin, Baumgardner and Woodmorappe (aka Jan Peczkis) all have published in the scientific literature.  This means there is no bias against ye-creationists.  It does suggest that these authors are not submitting their articles to mainstream journals for publication.

In the interest of 'following closely' lets examine the course of events.  

1.  JM: So, while you may have some conspiracy theory ingrained in your head, the evidence suggests that there is no a priori bias against ye-creationists or their science providing it's well documented.

2.  Gup20: Evidence?  What evidence do you speak of?  I thought that "A quick search on georef shows that Ye-creationism is mentioned in only a few editorial pieces, there are no scientific articles about ye-creationism in the scientific literature."

3.  JM: Follow closely. I noted that articles about ye-creationism are missing, but not necessarily ye-creation authors.

So your evidence that there is no bias against  YE-creationists is that they are there (at scientific conferences, etc)?  And your reasoning that they are not published is because they don't submit their work for peer review.  Yet, in #1 you clearly qualify your statment of there being no bias with the remark 'providing it's well documented'.  You reasoning is entirely circular.  

Don't missunderstand - I can see where you are leading me - that ye-creationists don't get published because they don't submit their work for peer review.  However, you have yet to provide any evidence of this.  You say they are here, but they don't get published because they don't submit their work.  Well, then why are they there?  I would say they are there to submit their work, and them not getting published is evidence, in fact, of the exclusionary nature of the scientific community to a theistic worldview.  

JM:  My prejudice is against bad science, the source is irrelevant (I've rejected any number of conventional geology papers for the same reasons).

I am glad that you admit to prejudice.  I think we have aready established your pattern of bias, however, I will give you the opportunity to present evidence against such a notion.  Please list the ye-creationists or ye articles/publications you have seen that do provide 'good science'.  You cleverly avoided making an unsubstanciated broad generalization by using the words 'nearly all', however you have now committed yourself to the notion that NOT ALL ye creationim is 'poorly documented, scientifically incorrect and unreviewed'.  By all means... demonstrate which ones you believe are not.  
This also demonstrates my point further.  If not all ye creationists work is bad, then why are they not published more often?  They sumit their work all the time to the likes of TJ and creation - they are clearly 'there' at the conferences and meetings.  Why then are they not published?  Again, because of the exclusionary nature of the evolutionary paradigm.  

JM: JM: Yes, I am being derogatory (you cannot assign derogatory) to bad scientists no matter their religious background.  It just so happens that we are talking about ye-creationists in this conversation, but my 'prejudice' against bad science is universal.

Does their belief in a young earth qualify them as 'bad scientists'?  Do you think all ye-scientists are bad scientists?  If not, please name several good ye-scientists.  

The point is, you have clearly demonstrated (just in this thread alone) your disdain for YE-scientists and the YE point of view.  You are clearly biased - as am I.  Yet you seem to be trying very hard to put on the appearance of objectivity.  Your clear contempt of YE-creationists, however, bleeds through your facade.  

JM: Actually, it is still as strong as ever.  You've just confused my point.  Bad science is bad science.  Creationists refuse to submit their science to mainstream journals preferring to publish them in uncritically reviewed literature and then whine about a bias that has never been demonstrated.  

And your evidence for the lack of submitting again is that they are there, there is no bias against them, therefore they must not be submitting their work?  

If you were the editor of a peer-reviewed journal, how many articles refuting the evolutionary paradigm would you put in your journal?

JM: You've just confused my point.

I don't think so, Joe.  I think I am seeing your 'point' pretty clearly.  I think you have decieved even yourself into parotting the dogma of a humanistic viewpoint because you feel you have all your 'chips riding on it'.  That's the beauty of the Bible though - it's all about redemption.  

JM: JM: No, that's not what I said.   Many oil company executives are Christians and they don't use creationist geology because it is innaccurate and poorly documented.  It is not a fruitful scientific venture.  If it was, then it would be adopted since industry is about the bottom line.

Jam 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

Many oil company executives are Christians  You got the survey results on that handy that you can post?  The point is - someone who affirms greed as their primary motivation has already forsaken the values of the Bible.  

JM: Those 'journals' adhere to a code that states that all science must be fit to the bible.

Indeed they do - it's like saying 'we know some truth, and any further theories must adhere to what we know to be true already'.  Let me ask you something - is this Joseph Meert, Assistant Professor of Geology at the University of Florida?  Would you consider yourself a scientist?  Would you consider yourself qualified to be considered a 'peer' who reads and has the opportunity to critically review scientific journals?  Let me draw your attention to the following quote you made:

JM: I am commenting on the material I've seen in TJ, CENTJ and on websites such as AIG and ICR.

Clearly, you have read and are commenting on information in TJ, CENTJ, AiG, etc.   I would say that they fit the description YOU YOURSELF have given of a credible scientific journal.  You have read them.  You have commented on them.  

JM: Bottom line is that if Humphreys wants to be taken seriously then he must act like any other scientist and submit his work for criticism.

Indeed he has done so.  You know that - you have even debated with Humphreys.  Your implication that TJ and CEN are not journals because they are not peer reviewed is refuted by YOUR OWN ACTIONS!  For you to even make such a charge is extremely duplicitous.  

Russel Humphrey's response to Joe Meert criticism

(assuming you are using your real name in this forum)

Paleosols:  digging deeper buries 'challenge' to flood geology  - TJ 17(3): 28-34
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 4:51 PM on May 1, 2004 | IP
Joe Meert

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You remain very confused.  As a scientist, I am particularly interested in the promotion of bad science.  I pay attention to bad science such as Humphreys and others when they publish in their glad rags.  The fact that I try to ferret out bad science where I see it is not the same thing as having the work noticed because it is a breakthrough.  Humphreys laughable mistakes on the earth's magnetic field are nearly sophomoric if real and downright lying for Jesus if intended! You also seem very confused and unable to differentiate between censorship, lack of publication and good science.  Censorship means that no matter what the ye-creationist writes, it is not allowed to be published.  That is false.  Evidence shows that it is simply the quality of the science that forms the basis for whether or not something is published.  If you want to prove censorship, then you must provide repeated instances where ye-creationists are rejected solely on the basis of their ye-articles rather than on the science contained in those articles.  You don't seem to grasp that and instead are tying yourself up in knots trying to change the meaning of my posts.  Here's a point by point simplification.

1. Accusation of censorship of ye-creationists made and refuted.  In fact, you've presented no evidence for this other than a vain attempt to twist my words to suit your argument.
2. Accusation that ye-creationists prefer un-reviewed glad rags instead of scientific journals presented and not refuted.
3. Assertion that ye-creationists have produced good ye-science,  no evidence provided.

Cheers

Joe Meert
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 6:58 PM on May 1, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Joe Meert:  As a scientist, I am particularly interested in the promotion of bad science.  I pay attention to bad science such as Humphreys and others when they publish in their glad rags.

Yet isn't this exactly what many evolutionists claim AiG and other Apologetics type sites do?  Then they scoff at AiG for not doing 'real science'.  

Joseph, you are a self-described apologetic!  You seek to 'defend your faith'.  You continually imply that ye-creationists are inferior scientists, and that you are simply an objective person looking to weed out Bad Science.  

You have yet to provide a demonstration of your objectivity.  You didn't even answer my challenge to name one ye-creationist you held in a positive regard.  This shows undenyably your biased disposition towards creation science.  In fact, in your mind, ye-creationism and 'bad science' are synonyms.  This is evidenced by your repeated labeling of creation scientists as 'bankrupt' or 'laughable' or calling creation science journals 'glad rags'.  You, sir, have no objectivity and it is duplicitous of you to try to give such an impression.  

In fact, you use the words 'bad science' to try to mask your loathing of ye-science and the people who do believe such.  Why not simply be forthright in your communication, Joe?  Why not simply say - I don't agree with the ye-creationists and here is why.  I'll tell you why - because ye-creationists have many valid arguments which you either fear or are simply not versed enough to refute.  You feel you have become master of your realm of study (paleomagnetism) and that therefore that grants you license to discredit the whole of ye-creationism.  

But who is really pushing 'bad science'?

This tidbit I found interesting:
Definitions as slippery as eels
It is vitally important that words should be used accurately and consistently. Without this, any discussion is meaningless, so this must be addressed before anything else. And this is a major failing with Lerner’s paper — he never defines ‘evolution’ and he doesn’t use the term consistently.

The theory that Lerner and other materialists are really promoting, and which creationists oppose, is the idea that particles turned into people over time, without any need for an intelligent designer. This ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE) was defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’1

However, many many evolutionary propagandists are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part-way through an argument. A common tactic is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution’, then imply that the GTE is thereby proven or even essential, and Creation disproven. For example, Lerner writes:

‘What do we mean by evolution, and what is its place in the sciences? The universe is a dynamic place at every scale of space and time. Almost all science is the study of the evolution of one system or another — systems as large as the universe itself or as small as a neutrino; systems whose time scales are measured in billions of years or in attoseconds.

‘Thus, evolution is an indispensable concept across all the sciences. But biological evolution in particular has come to occupy a peculiar position in American education.’

Also, throughout Lerner’s paper are concepts that students should know. However, many of them are simply examples of change over time, so are not disputed by creationists. But the implication throughout is that without the GTE, it would be impossible to understand that:

All living things reproduce.

Offspring are similar to but not exactly like their parents.

Offspring have to grow up (or change; e.g., metamorphose) before reproducing themselves.

There is a fit between individuals, or species, and their environment (e.g., terrestrial, aquatic, aerial). …

Natural selection determines the differential survival of groups of organisms.

But understanding these concepts does not depend on the GTE.


I have read several articles with your name in them from AiG.  It seems you have made it your personal mission in life to try to discredit ye-creationists.  

Dr Joseph G. (‘Joe’) Meert, is a vocal anti-creationist active on the Internet, who certainly used to describe himself as an atheist, as most evolutionary propagandists are.  Ed. note: he informed us, ‘while I may have described myself as an atheist in the past, that is no longer an accurate description’, and ‘You can put me down as “agnostic” which I believe to be an ultimately impossible position to maintain’ although for all practical purposes there is hardly any difference).

He is typical of anti-creationist academics who venture outside their own field and use an argument from authority.  For example, on the Amazon book reviews he criticized Lee Spetner’s book Not By Chance, but showed that he was unable (or unwilling) to grasp the simple point that goo-to-you evolution requires changes that increase information, not just survivability.

And like many anti-creationists known to be vociferous atheists (even if he now says he has backtracked from overt atheism), he is not above pretending to care about how creation harms Christianity and misrepresents the Bible, e.g. on the Amazon reviews of The Answers Book. Dr Meert has even reviewed Dr Humphreys’ own book Starlight and Time. But Meert just showed that he hasn’t the slightest grasp of the cosmological principles involved, since he didn’t even attempt to deal with the substance. Instead he resorted to inflammatory attacks, and once again hid his anti-Christian bigotry by his pretence that there is nothing apologetically wrong with an old Earth. [Ed. note: he later tried to assure us that he is not anti-Christian.  But we still fail to see how this could be consistent with someone who spends so much time and energy attacking so much that Jesus taught.

You can read the Full Article Here.

It would seem that my impressions of you are indeed correct, and that many others have seen the same duplicity as I have percieved in you.  

JM: Censorship means that no matter what the ye-creationist writes, it is not allowed to be published.  That is false.  Evidence shows that it is simply the quality of the science that forms the basis for whether or not something is published.

Now Joe, you know as well as I do that if a paper esteems theology or deals with ye-creationism in a positive light, it doesn't see the light of day in secular journals.  

Here is what Humphreys had to say about that -

Q: Do creation scientists publish in secular journals?
We referred this question to Dr D. Russell Humphreys (pictured), a nuclear physicist who works at Sandia National Laboratories. Dr Humphreys says he has often had this question put to him. He writes:


‘When people ask me this, I feel a certain amount of frustration because of the evolutionist brainwashing in our society which it reveals.

‘Firstly, it shows that the questioner is unaware of the large number of published professional scientists who are creationists. Where I live and work (Albuquerque, New Mexico) there are large numbers of scientists, and I know many who happen to be biblical creationists. Using a simple statistical approach, I would conservatively estimate that in the United States alone, there are around 10,000 practising professional scientists who openly believe in six-day recent creation.

‘Secondly, it suggests that the questioner doesn’t understand what the day-to-day life of a scientist is all about. One could almost say that publication in professional journals is the essence of being a scientist. So asking a man who says he is a scientist if he’s published in secular journals is like asking a man who says he’s married if he’s got a wife!

‘I would therefore reply to such a question ‘Are there any who don’t?’ Every one I know does publish. Even scientists who are full-time in creationist organisations usually have a few such publications, despite the serious disadvantage their institutional connections give them. Although there is strong discrimination against high-profile creationist scientists, most creationist scientists publish non-creationist scientific articles frequently. Moreover, many of them have published data with important creationist implications—but without explicit creationist conclusions, which would point out the significance of the data to the average non-creationist scientist.

‘What about creationist scientists publishing articles, in secular journals, which specifically come to creationist conclusions? The bitter experience of a number of us has made it clear that there is almost no chance that such articles will pass the review process, no matter what their quality. I have also had repeated correspondence with the letters editors of major journals, having submitted brief, well-written items which critiqued published conclusions favourable to long-agers or ‘big-bangers’. These contained no explicit creationist connotations, but I have concluded that, now that I am known as a creationist, such items have virtually no chance of publication.’

That’s why creationists have had to develop their own peer-reviewed journals, such as the Creation Research Society Quarterly and the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal. Some creationist scientists are world leaders in their field, like geophysicist Dr John Baumgardner of Los Alamos Laboratories, in the field of plate tectonics [see interview Creation 19(3):40–43, 1997].


See also Contemporary Suppression of the theistic woldview

See also Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refreed Journals?

JM:  Here's a point by point simplification.

1. Accusation of censorship of ye-creationists made and refuted.  In fact, you've presented no evidence for this other than a vain attempt to twist my words to suit your argument.
2. Accusation that ye-creationists prefer un-reviewed glad rags instead of scientific journals presented and not refuted.
3. Assertion that ye-creationists have produced good ye-science,  no evidence provided.


Lets go through these -

1.  You claim to have refuted the accusation of censorship, yet an analysis of your 'evidence' reveals the only backing of this claim is a circular argument of which the basis is that there is no bias in secular journals, and that ye-creationists don't get published because they don't submit their ideas to the journals.  

I have showed you one first hand account (along with several others in the links I gave) where ye-creationists are trying to get their work published in secular journals, but the journals refuse to do so regardless of the quality of their work.  Like so many evolutionists, you ignored the evidence because you either didn't like it, or it didn't suit your wishful thinking.  

2.  I showed how the 'unreviewed glad rags' (you refer to TJ, and CEN, etc) are 1) credible, and 2) peer reviewed, and 3) peer responded to.  In fact, I showed how YOUR OWN ACTIONS refuted this accusation that creationists prefer unreviewd journals, as TJ and CEN (and websites like ICR and AiG) are reviewed often (and responded to) by those under the influence of the evolutionary paradigm.  You have, as in point1, ignored the argument rather than responding to it - then you claim it has not been refuted.  

I can't read it to you Joe - you are going to have to at least make an effort.

3.  Proof positive that it is your belief and assertion that ye-creationists are incapable of Good Science.  Here is direct evidence that you believe that all ye-science is bad science.  Not only does this demonstrate your bigotry, but it is also incorrect.  I did indeed provide evidence of 'good science'.

Posted by Gup20 at Fri April 30, 2004 - 11:29 PM:
[/i]Humphreys took the approach towards the 'big bang' cosmology that it had a center and an edge... going against long standing beliefs on big bang theory.  Recently even those with evolutionary paradigms have begun to lean towards this concept.  [/i]

Of course since Humphrey's is a YE-creationist, his work did not see the light of day in secular journals - however, once someone else came along with the same principle ideas and submitted it with an 'old earth' mantality, it was seized upon as breakthrough work (the smoller/temple paper).  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 3:30 PM on May 2, 2004 | IP
Joe Meert

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gup,

   You seem to have a lot of misconceptions that you use to misrepresent others.  I am Joe Meert and this is not some pseudonym I use.  You can find my web pages at:
My webpage
You can e-mail me at:
jmeert@geology.ufl.edu
or you can call me at 352-846-2414 to verify that I am the one posting here.  There are several problems with your assertions and those that you find spattered about the AIG website.  First and foremost, I am no longer an atheist or agnostic.  I am a Christian.  Secondly, Humphreys is still misrepresenting the magnetic field, you posted some repsonse regarding Helium which has nothing to do with my criticism of the magnetic field stuff he does:
that can be found at
Humphreys mistakes explained
You posted Tas Wlaker's article that contains numerous fundamental errors which I have explained at
Walker's Poor Geology
and also here
Paleosols

What impresses me most is that you have repeatedly made the assertion that ye-creationists cannot get published and then you post links to their publications.  You are very good at refuting your own arguments!

Cheers

Joe Meert
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 08:27 AM on May 3, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gup20 states:
Of course since Humphrey's is a YE-creationist, his work did not see the light of day in secular journals - however, once someone else came along with the same principle ideas and submitted it with an 'old earth' mantality, it was seized upon as breakthrough work (the smoller/temple paper).  


Smoller/Temple have come up with some interesting solutions for GR field equations and given an unorthodox interpretation.   Their work seems to have had little impact on other cosmological work, so calling it a "breakthrough" is a little overstated.  Check out the papers ctiing their 2000 paper on the same work, Cosmology with a shock-wave,Smoller J, Temple B
COMMUNICATIONS IN MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS
210 (2): 275-308 MAR 2000.

Choi J, Hong ST
   Warped product approach to universe with nonsmooth scale factor
   J MATH PHYS 45 (2): 642-651 FEB 2004

Smoller J, Temple B
   Shock-wave cosmology inside a black hole
   P NATL ACAD SCI USA 100 (20): 11216-11218 SEP 30 2003

Bounias M, Krasnoholovets V
   Scanning the structure of ill-known spaces - Part 2. Principles of construction of physical space
   KYBERNETES 32 (7-8): 976-1004 2003

This is not a list that suggests that their ideas have had any widespread impact.    They seem to expect that observational results will begin to support their viewpoint, but so far to no avail.

The beauty of science publication is that their results are now available for others to use.  They may be wrong in their cosmological implcations, but their mathematics is interesting, and may be applicable elsewhere.  




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:46 AM on May 3, 2004 | IP
godyag

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have been reading many of the YEC websites your have posted and have been trying to understand the Creation geologic model.  In reference to the above debate about Oil company's use of conventional geology, the bottom line is that we use the "old" earth model  because it works.  Regardless of what the personal beliefs of the geologist and geophysicist working with seismic and borehole log data are, they have to come up with a process or environment to explain what they observe, and thus to understand the area they are working in, and thus maximize their success finding hydrocarbon targets.  If the flood model (I will say flood model because most of the processes and geologic events center around the flood) is a better fit, then I would switch.  But, I don't think the flood model works.  I have yet to see how the a global flood event could create the stratigraphy I work with every day.

Here are the sites I have been doing my reading on.   If you have others that are more detailed then please post them : )
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp
Specifically,
http://www.uq.net.au/~zztbwalk/

Here are some problems I would come against right now if I was to apply the flood model:

How can I have what appears to be a paleochannel (old riverbeds) systems mixed in with dinosaur fossils ?  Aren't dinosaurs supposed to have died in a great flood, why do I see rivers when there should be deep water.  If those were pre-flood dinosaurs and rivers, where are the flood sediments?

What special conditions during the flood would deposit coarse sands, grading to silt, grading to limestone and then back to silt then sand (over and over again)?  I can see this occurring repeatedly here in Alberta Canada?  This type of stratigraphy is observed today with rising and falling water levels in lakes and oceans.  Were there numerous floods?  Why were the water levels changing so much?  How could a global flood (which would be hundreds of meters deep at the minimum) deposit sand and silts and larger rocks (conglomerates) in separate layers like that?  Shouldn't the heavier particles have settled out first?  Why are there some layers with heavier particles on top of fine particles? Why does the sequence repeat?

Why are there fossils throughout the sedimentary sequence?  Shouldn't there be a concentration at the bottom of the flood deposits?   If there were enormous currents picking up animals and sediments alike and "mixing" them up, why do we find specific animals in widespread layers?  Why would there be giant currents in a deep ocean of water?  There are currents in our modern oceans, but not nearly strong enough to cause global ocean mixing?  

If sea creatures and birds were created in one day, why do we observe fossilized colonies of stromatolite fossils in what I would call "precambrian" rocks (old rocks much deeper than the sedimentary rocks of the flood event) but no other types of fossils?  Where are the bird fossils?  Why don't they show up until the top of the flood rocks?  Why have we never found dinosaur fossils in the same layer as human fossils?  

Etc.

I know I am generalizing there, but the current geologic model does a nice job of explaining this even in a general sense, I don't think the flood model does.  Until it does, I will use the current geologic model.  If you have links addressing these questions then please post them for me

thanks in advance,


-------
love,
godyag
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 3:17 PM on May 3, 2004 | IP
godyag

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hey Gup,

I was reading some other posts where you guys were discussing biblical references and you mentioned the creation of day and night in the bible.  Anyway, I didn't want to post there since this is off-topic so I posted it here instead.

I was wondering if you had any links to info about how the creation model incorporates tidal friction and the slow down of the rotation of the earth.  I checked some of the other geology pages you sent but couldn't find much.  Specifically my question is if the creation model has a way to explaining why the rotational velocity of the earth seems to have slowing down during the past few thousand years.  


In the evolutionists geologic model, growth layers on calcareous shells are counted to determine the length of months and years at the time that the shells were grown.   Shells formed in intertidal zones are used since each rising of the tide acts to add one more thin layer of Calcareous material to the shell (two tides/day).  You can count them similar to how tree rings are used to determine age.  Long wavelegth cyclical variations on these layers are interpreted to represent seasonal changes, and so the number of days/ year can be estimated.  Anyway, the number of days per year seems to have been higher in the past.  

As a quick reference, 400 million years ago each year had about 400 days.  The cause of the earths rotational deceleration is attributed tidal friction with the sun and moon.  I thought maybe there was another interpretation out there by creationists that would offer an alternative model to slow down the earth, or to explain the increased calcareous shell layers/ year in the past.


Talk to you all later,



-------
love,
godyag
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 4:51 PM on May 5, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

godyag -

Let me see if I can find a more specific answer to your specific questions.  I can give generalized answers, but I don't think that's what you are after.  

While I am searching, take a look at these:

Flood Evidences
Musings on Geology


 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 5:50 PM on May 5, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Good question on the tidal friction.  Initially, I found this:

"Since the earth is very gradually slowing down due to tidal friction, the days may have differed from our own by very tiny amounts. ‘Earth-rotation day’ is technically more precise than ‘24 hour day’. Our present day is not exactly 24 hours anyway. "

It was in the reference to another page dealing with the literalness of Genesis

I will try to find more for you.
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 5:57 PM on May 5, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Flood info

This Article does have a little more info on tidal friction.  (at least in relation to the physics of the flood model)

Edited in:

Also - and this is purely off the top of my head (not based on scientific study) - tidal friction may have something to do with the long life of original humans.  Adam, for example, was over 900 years old when he died.  It was within 5 generations of Noah that we started seeing 130 year max life-spans.  

Also - with the entire surface of the earth covered in water, that would certainly change the friction level.  

That sort of thing would greatly screw up the uniformitarian view that the conditions of the present tell us how to interpret the past.  

(Edited by Gup20 5/5/2004 at 6:17 PM).
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 6:06 PM on May 5, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The article referenced by Flood Info is garbage.  My graduate thesis was on computational fluid dynamics, and I assure you that the assumptions made and simplifications used in that paper would give you results that would have nothing to do with real world results.  Fluid dynamics is extremely non-linear, and if you over-simplify a problem in the name of finding an answer, than the answer you get won't be to your original problem.
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 11:49 PM on May 5, 2004 | IP
Joe Meert

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Kronus at 11:49 PM on May 5, 2004 :
The article referenced by Flood Info is garbage.  My graduate thesis was on computational fluid dynamics, and I assure you that the assumptions made and simplifications used in that paper would give you results that would have nothing to do with real world results.  Fluid dynamics is extremely non-linear, and if you over-simplify a problem in the name of finding an answer, than the answer you get won't be to your original problem.


JM: But that is how all ye-creation 'science' is done.  There's no peer review (other than a check to make sure it doesn't go against the preconceived conclusions of whatever organization is publishing it).  Ye-creation science reminds me of propaganda in the former Soviet Union.  You can publish anything as long as you goose step to the party line.  No checks for errors, no field work needed.  If you want, you can write an entire article about some 200 dpi photo you found on a website
see

Walker's folly

Cheers

Joe Meert
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 09:21 AM on May 6, 2004 | IP
godyag

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I read through those articles, none of them deal with my question directly.  I am looking into it myself right now.  But, while reading this one :
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-016.htm
I started to think about heat flow.

First of all, this is a poor article.  The problems they are discussing are out of context.  Lord Kelvin was a great scientist but I consider his ideas backward.  He had little idea of how much heat is produced by radioactive decay, and no concept of plate tectonics.  The earth model has changed so much over the past 100 years that his arguments (for someone familiar to the present model) are foolish.  I am not calling him an idiot, he is just out of his element.

Anyway, I was thinking about cooling igneous bodies.  I thought that a 10 000 year time scale would be too short a time for a large body of magma to solidify, but I wanted to know accurate times.  So, I created a hypothetical batholith:  this could represent a large igneous intrusion (tens of km across) or less well a cooling sea floor (since the flood model calls for mid-ocean spreading rates that are so fast that large quantities of basalt extruded at mid-ocean ridges could be considered as a large planar sheets of magma).  So, it turns into one of those nice boundary problems discussed in the article.

I simplified (for easy math) to a 1 dimensional heat flow problem.  I know this is a big simplification, but if the body is large in the horizontal direction (which is this) I assume, that in the center of the intrusion, that all heat flow is towards the surface of the earth.  I think it is a good ball park approximation.  The surface temp was set to 0 degrees C.  This could be the surface of the earth, or ocean water.

Once again, infinite in the horizontal.  If you want I will figure out how to post a derivatio, but for now cosider this:

T(z,t)-(Ti)(erf[z/(4kt)^1/2])

Ti=initial temperature of the intrusion = 1000 deg C
k= thermal diffusivity = 0.7X10^-6 m^2/s
erf = the error function.

I choose a point at 1 km depth, this is much less than the current thickness of the ocean crust, and a relatively shallow point in a large intrusion.

Here are some numbers I came up with:

Time         Temp                               Comments
10 K           868.4 Deg C                    So in ten thousand years the temp at 1 km depth is still 868.4 deg c.
300 K        ~200 Deg C                     After 300 000 years the temp has dropped to 200 deg C
10 000 K  ~25 Deg C                        So after ten million years the temperature has dropped to 25 deg C.

I choose 25 deg C here because the temperature increase in the upper continental crust is about 25 deg C /km.   So for a large intrusion to cool to "normal" crustal temperatures (at 1 km depth) it would take ten million years.   There are many batholiths on the planet that are of great size, and are cool.  So, they either cooled over a very long time, or God created them like that.  If they cooled a great depth the times would be even longer since the thermal diffusivity would have to decrease.   Perhaps the cooling was spead up for some reason?

I am gong to work this out for a large planer sill tonight.  I will assume that it is a "flood basalt" that was initially at 1000 deg C, with 0 deg C boundaries on either side, once again infinite in the horizontal.  I will find the maximum thickness allowed for a dyke to cool to 25 deg C in 10 000 years.  I am sure that it is going to be relatively thin.

So, I don't think that the earth is 10 000 years old because there is just not enough time for these large bodies to cool.  If you have any links that can show me otherwise please post them.


-------
love,
godyag
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 10:49 AM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Joe Meert

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you want, I've written a little program that you can play around with to calculate solidification times for dikes and other intrusions.  You can go here to download it

Cooling Times for Intrusions

It requires input of parameters for Latent heat of fusion, thermal diffusivity, specific heat, magma temp, ambient temp and dike thickness.  It then iteratively solves for the cooling time.  Enjoy.

Cheers

Joe Meert

(Edited by Joe Meert 5/6/2004 at 10:58 AM).
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 10:55 AM on May 6, 2004 | IP
godyag

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks Joe, I will play with it tonight : )




-------
love,
godyag
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 1:04 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

godyag:  Anyway, I was thinking about cooling igneous bodies.  I thought that a 10 000 year time scale would be too short a time for a large body of magma to solidify, but I wanted to know accurate times.

Rapid Granite Formation from AiG
One of the persistent scientific objections to the Earth being young (6,000–7,000 years old rather than 4.5 billion years), and the Flood being a year–long, mountain–covering, global event, has been the apparent evidence that the large bodies of granite rocks found today at the Earth’s surface took millions of years to cool from magmas. However, contrary evidence pointing to relatively rapid, even catastrophic, formation of granites is now beginning to surface.

Granites are crystalline rocks that occur over large areas, sometimes exposed over hundreds of square kilometres. Deep in the Earth’s crust, the temperatures are sometimes high enough to melt the rocks, particularly if there are applied high pressures due to tectonic forces (earth movements). The theory has been that large ‘blobs’ of magma are thus generated at 750–900° C, and because they are ‘lighter’ than the surrounding rocks the ‘blobs’ rise like balloon–shaped diapirs into the cooler upper crust. There they crystallise as granites.

Young1 has insisted that an immense granitic batholith like that of southern California required a period of about one million years in order to crystallise completely, an estimate repeated by Hayward.2 A survey of the technical literature, however, yields estimates of even greater time–spans. Pitcher sums it all up:

‘My guess is that a granitic magma pulse generated in a collisional orogen may, in a complicated way involving changing rheologies of both melt and crust, take 5–10 Ma to generate, arrive, crystallize sand cool to the ambient crustal temperature.’3

Of course, there is the added time–span from cooling of the granite pluton within the Earth’s crust to its exposure at today’s land surface by uplift and erosion. Nevertheless, it should be kept in perspective that most recent estimates of these time–spans, including uplift and erosion, rely heavily on radiometric dating determinations and uniformitarian assumptions, and not just on the thermodynamics of crystallisation and heat flow/dissipation.

So whence cometh the challenge to this hithertofore seemingly impregnable bastion of old-earthers? Surprisingly, the contrary evidence pointing to relatively rapid (the word ‘catastrophic’ has even been used!) formation of granites within the ranks of the ‘establishment’ itself! The geological fraternity always had a problem within the accepted ‘wisdom’ anyway—the so–called space problem. How does the balloon–shaped diapir find room to rise through the Earth’s crust and then the space to crystallise there (even at 2–5 km depth) in spite of the continual confining pressures? As Petford et al. point out,

‘The established idea that granitoid magmas ascend through the continental crust as diapirs is being increasingly questioned by igneous and structural geologists.’4

In promoting the idea that the long distance diapir transport of granitic magmas is not viable on thermal and mechanical grounds, Clemens and Mawer favoured the growth of plutons by dyke injection propagating along fractures.5 In other words, the magma is squeezed upwards as thin sheets through long, narrow fractures. Pitcher comments:

‘what is particularly radical is their calculation that a sizeable pluton may be filled in about 900 years. This is really speedy!’6

Petford et al. have gone further, with calculations which show that a crystal–free granitoid melt at 900° C, with a water content of 1.5 weight per cent, a viscosity of 8x105 Pa s, a density of about 2,600 kg/m3, and a density contrast between magma and crust of 200 kg/m3, can be transported vertically through the crust a distance of 30 km along a 6 m wide dyke in just 41 days.7 This equates to a mean ascent rate of about 1 cm/sec. Petford et al. then apply their equations to the Cordillera Blanca batholith of north–west Peru and conclude that if its estimated volume is 6,000 km3, then it could have been filled from a 10 km long dyke in only 350 years. Magma transport must be this fast through such a dyke so that the granitoid magma does not freeze due to cooling within the conduit as it is ascending, and Petford et al. therefore maintain that the dyke intrusion of granitoid magma occurs in response to fault slippage within the Earth’s crust. They stop short of accepting this 350 year rapid filling of this batholith, because that rate is orders of magnitude greater than the mean cavity–opening rates based on radiometric dates for the associated faults. So Petford et al. are constrained by the radiometric dates to conclude that intrusion of the batholith must have been very intermittent, the magma being supplied in brief, catastrophic pulses, while the conduit supposedly remained open for 3 million years.

In a more recent study, Petford has dealt with the question of how and at what rate, does deep crustal or upper mantle rock melt to form granite magmas?8 This is, of course, the first step in the process of formation of granites. Petford suggests that, according to the best theoretical models, melted rock in the lower crust segregates via porous flow into fractures within the source rock (usually metamorphic) above a mafic intrusion to form veins. Local compaction of the surrounding matrix then allows the veins to enlarge as they fill further with melt, and the fluid–filled veins coalesce to form a dyke. At a certain critical melt-fraction per cent of the source rock, a threshold is reached where the critical dyke width is achieved. Once that critical dyke width is exceeded, ‘rapid (catastrophic) removal of the melt from source’ occurs. The veins collapse abruptly, only to be then refilled by continuing porous flow of more melt from the continuously applied heat to the source rock. Thus the process is repeated, the granitic melt being extracted and then ascending through dykes to the upper crust in rapid and catastrophic pulses.

‘In the physical model presented here of rapid melt extraction followed by ascent of relatively small magma batches at rates orders of magnitude faster than chemical diffusion, the only significant magma reservoir will exist at the level of emplacement, provided that is that space can be made fast enough in the upper crust to accommodate the ascending magma batches.’9

Rapid provision of the required space within the upper crust would not be a problem within the context of a catastrophic global Flood that involved catastrophic plate tectonics.10 However, Petford only postulates a maximum vein filling rate of about 2.5 m/yr for a grain size of 5 mm and a porosity of 50 %, a rate that seems comfortably slow enough for his uniformitarian time–scale.

But now just to hand is an independent test of the slow (diapir) versus fast (dyke) models for emplacement of granitic magmas, based both on laboratory work and field observations. Brandon et al. chose the mineral epidote for study because it has a magmatic origin in some granitic rocks and its stability in granitic magmas is restricted to pressures of >= 600 MPa (a depth of 21 km).11 Their experimental work has now shown that epidote dissolves rapidly in granitic melts at pressures of < 600 MPa. Indeed, for temperatures appropriate for granitic magmas (700–800° C) they found that epidote crystals (0.2–0.7 mm) would dissolve in a low-pressure granite melt within 3–200 years. Therefore, if magma transport from sources in the lower crust is slow (> 1,000 years), epidote will not be preserved within upper–crustal batholiths. Yet the authors are able to point to granitic rocks of the Front Range (Colorado) and the White Creek Batholith (British Columbia) in which epidote crystals are found, 0.5 mm wide crystals (in the case of the Front Range occurrence) that would dissolve at 800° C in less than 50 years. Brandon et al. state:

‘Preservation of 0.5mm crystals therefore requires a transport rate from a pressure of 600 to 200 MPa of greater than 700 m year-1.’12

They went on to calculate a maximum ascent rate of 1.4x104 m (or 14 km) per year for the epidote–bearing White Creek Batholic granitic magma. Therefore, since epidote is found preserved in granitic magmas crystallised at shallow levels, then granitic magma transport from the lower crust must be fast (very much less than 1,000 years). Furthermore, since the modelling of ascending diapirs indicates such magma transport rates are slow (0.3–50 m per year) and ascent times are 10,000–100,000 years,13,14 then the preservation of epidote crystals not only implies magma transport was via dykes rather than diapirs.

What all this means is that much progress is currently being made by some establishment geologists (not all agree yet) with a catastrophic model for the ascent of granitic magmas. While their findings are drastically reducing the time–scales involved, even for granitic melt production in the lower crust, there is still some way to go for our apparent granite problem to be fully solved. Yet since their calculations are invariably always placed within a uniformitarian, radiometrically–determined, millions–of–years context, there appears to be no intrinsic obstacle to successful transposition of these findings to a total catastrophic context, such as catastrophic plate tectonics within a global Flood. This is not to ignore the cooling of the granite magma once it has been rapidly transported into place from deep in the crust, but as Pitcher reminds us,

‘...it is salutary to note that his [Spera15] estimates of the time taken for solidification of a typical pluton from liquidus to solidus temperatures varies greatly with the assumed water content, decreasing ten-fold between 0.5 and 4 wt % [weight per cent] water.’16



 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 2:48 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Also see Rapid Rocks

[From AiG - Rapid Rocks]
New evidence overcomes yet another ‘certain’ geological objection to a young Earth.

An oft-repeated objection to the Earth’s being only 6,000–7,000 years old is that large bodies of magma (molten rock) supposedly require millions of years to accumulate and cool inside the Earth’s upper crust to form granites.1,2,3  Exposed at the Earth’s surface today due to erosion, these large bodies of granites (plutons) sometimes cover hundreds of square kilometres. It is thought that up to 86% of the once-molten rocks which have intruded into the upper crust are granites.

Rapid injection
Deep in the lower crust, the temperatures sometimes reach 700–900 °C. This is high enough to melt the rocks locally, particularly if there are high pressures, thus generating large ‘blobs’ of granitic magmas. Recent research indicates that the amount of water which can dissolve in granitic magmas increases with depth because of increased pressure.4 Thus more than 10% of the magma weight may be dissolved water.

Once molten, the ‘blobs’ of magma are ‘lighter’ than the surrounding rocks so the magma tries to rise, not slowly as large ‘blobs’ as once thought, but squeezed through fractures to be rapidly injected into the upper crust.5,6  The water in the magma makes it less viscous (more fluid), greatly helping its flow into and along fractures.7  Calculations indicate that the magma could ascend at more than 800m per day.5 At that rate, the 6,000 cubic kilometre Cordillera Blanca pluton of north-west Peru could have been formed by magma injected from more than 30km depth through a 6m wide and 10 km long fracture conduit in only 350 years.5

Plutons exposed at the Earth’s surface were once thought to extend many kilometres down into the lower crust. This would imply that an enormous amount of heat needed to be dissipated as the original magmas cooled, thus requiring millions of years. However, geophysical investigations have revealed that many plutons are only a few kilometres thick, and some are made up of thin (100–1,000 m) sheets stacked on top of one another8  — for example, the Harney Peak Granite pluton that includes Mt Rushmore in the Black Hills, South Dakota, where the famous president’s heads are carved.9  This discovery of itself greatly diminishes the cooling ‘problem’.

Rapid water cooling
Research has also shown that the higher the water content of a magma, the faster it will cool.10  This is simply explained. As the magma cools and the granite crystallises, the contained water comes out of solution. But it is still very hot and confined as steam by the surrounding cooling granite, and the country rock. As continued cooling occurs and more water is released, the pressure inside the forming pluton increases to the point where the water can no longer be confined, so it is driven by the heat outwards towards the crystallised granite at the pluton’s margins and escapes into the surrounding country rocks by fracturing the granite.11  In so doing it takes heat with it outwards along fractures also in the country rocks (Figure 1). At the same time, cooler water in the country rocks can seep inwards into the pluton, where it is heated and then circulates out again, taking more heat energy with it. Thus what is known as hydrothermal circulation is established.12  As the cooling front advances deeper and deeper into the heart of the hot pluton, the cracking and hydrothermal circulation also move inwards, and thus the pluton rapidly cools.

Previously, it had been assumed that cooling of plutons was only by way of conduction. So it is not surprising that calculations suggested millions of years were needed (Figure 1). That process can be likened to the cooling of a hot potato which is surrounded by a thick blanket. The heat from inside the potato takes a lot of time to work its way to the surface of the potato, and then to work its way through the blanket. Now suppose that we remove the blanket. The potato will cool more rapidly. Now let us slice the potato. Immediately, we see steam come out, and rise in a column. This indicates that not only is heat rapidly leaving the potato, but the heat transfer now is mostly by convection. It is the circulation of air near the potato which is largely responsible for its cooling. Of course, if we want to cool the potato still faster, we can pour ice-cold water into it after we slice it.


Figure 1. Cooling of a pluton by (a) conduction and (b) convection. The sizes of the arrows are proportional to the rate of heat flow to the surface. Convection dissipates the heat along fractures very quickly.
In many ways, the buried pluton is like that hot potato. If only conductive cooling is allowed, heat can only work its way out slowly from within the pluton, through the thick layers of rock enclosing it, and to the surface (Figure 1). Now consider what would happen if the thick layers of enclosing rocks became cracked. Water would naturally percolate through the rocks, and this would speed up the cooling of the pluton. The very heat supplied by the pluton would help drive the circulation of water, and hence the ‘carrying-away’ of the pluton’s own heat (Figure 1). Now let us take the analogy of the potato further. Permit not only the surrounding rock layers to crack, but also allow the pluton itself to crack as it cools. This makes it possible for ground water to percolate right into the hottest regions of the very interior of the ‘hot potato’ pluton.

How rapidly then does cooling occur? Based on mathematical cooling models, the time to cool a large pluton falls from several million years to only a few thousand, at most.12,13 ,14  The most recent models actually enable the cooling to be computer-simulated,15 ,16  but the timescale for cooling is still only hundreds to a few thousand years, depending on the sizes of plutons.14

Cracking and cooling
Is there evidence that ancient plutons have been largely cooled by convective water cooling? Definitely. The rock layers in contact with granites often contain chemicals which show that water has been greatly involved in cooling of the granites.17,18  Virtually all plutons are dissected by cracks of various sizes.14 In fact, it is next to impossible to locate uncracked granites! Many granitic bodies contain mineral-filled cracks, clearly proving that water has once flowed through them (the minerals crystallized out from a water solution). Furthermore, under special lighting, seemingly-intact granite samples show previously-filled channels between the major mineral components.19  Some granitic minerals, such as quartz, show evidence of having cooled under fluctuating temperatures. This is all consistent with rapid water-induced cooling, not slow-and-even cooling over millions of years.

To begin with, the amount of heat to be dissipated by rapidly-cooling plutons is not great. A large granite body will heat to boiling point only about its equivalent mass in water. This means that there is plenty of water on Earth to have carried away the heat of cooling plutons. Most of the Earth’s water would be unaffected by the heat of the world’s plutons undergoing cooling during and shortly after the biblical Flood. Nor would rapidly-cooling plutons cause excessive local heating. Simple computations show that the heat given off at the surface by a large granite body cooling in 3000 years would be only half the rate of the heat emitted in a modern geothermal field in Iceland.20

Conclusions
Millions of years are not necessary for the formation and cooling of granite plutons. New evidence shows that thick plutons are not the result of one-time slow intrusion of great amounts of magma into the Earth’s upper crust. Instead, they are the result of rapidly-injected coalescing sheets of magma. Each of these sheets probably at least partly cooled independent of the other sheets, thereby greatly accelerating cooling. Less than 3,000 years would be needed to cool most plutons, and the vital ingredient is water in the magma and in the surrounding rocks. Thus the timescale and conditions for the formation and cooling of granites are totally consistent with a 6,000–7,000 year-old Earth and a global cataclysmic Flood 4,500–5,000 years ago.
[/From AiG - Rapid Rocks]


edited in:  

I have also run accross an obvious answer to one of your questions, godyag.  

godyag:  If sea creatures and birds were created in one day, why do we observe fossilized colonies of stromatolite fossils in what I would call "precambrian" rocks (old rocks much deeper than the sedimentary rocks of the flood event) but no other types of fossils?  Where are the bird fossils?  Why don't they show up until the top of the flood rocks?

You have to understand - there are mutiple global flood conditions within the Biblical framework (something my stupid brain kept failing to realize).  When the earth was created on day 1, it was completely covered with water.  God had not caused land to appear.  No animals had been created, no plants, no life yet at all.  Noah's flood was the 2nd time the entire earth was completely covered with water - and the 1st time that a global flood buried fossils (and it buried billions of them).  

(Edited by Gup20 5/8/2004 at 12:55 PM).
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 3:50 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Joe Meert

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gups silliness.  I cannot believe that anyone would believe that because some rocks can form and cool quickly that ALL rocks will do so.  Gup, you are a hopeless romantic.  You've gone googly-eyed over AIG's propganda and can no longer see the forest for the trees.  So why not tell all of us idiots why your 'articles' prove that all rocks formed quickly.  You might also explain what took AIG so long to figure out that some could form quickly (geologists have known this for a LONG time).

Cheers

Joe Meert
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 7:34 PM on May 8, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I cannot believe that anyone would believe that because some rocks can form and cool quickly that ALL rocks will do so.

That's like saying you can't believe that because we observe something to be one way today, that we would assume it's always been that way.  It is this uniformitarian view that radiometric dating is based on - hard to believe you 'can't believe it'.  

So which is it, Joe?  Do we interpret the past by observing the present, or is it possible that the present doesn't contain the answers to explain the past?  I am curious to know your answer.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 04:04 AM on May 9, 2004 | IP
Joe Meert

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gup20 at 04:04 AM on May 9, 2004 :
I cannot believe that anyone would believe that because some rocks can form and cool quickly that ALL rocks will do so.

That's like saying you can't believe that because we observe something to be one way today, that we would assume it's always been that way.  It is this uniformitarian view that radiometric dating is based on - hard to believe you 'can't believe it'.  


JM: It would help if you would think and read outside of creationist propaganda.  Radioactive decay is known to be constant based on observations made today and observations made in the past and present.   We can observe the results of decay in the past and present and know that it has been nearly constant.  

So which is it, Joe?  Do we interpret the past by observing the present, or is it possible that the present doesn't contain the answers to explain the past?  I am curious to know your answer.  


JM: Are you truly curious?  The answer is always 'both'.  If you read outside your Maoist Red Book of propaganda (AIG, ICR) you would not ask such a silly question.  If you truly understood science, you would not ask such a silly question.  If you bothered to read in depth, you would not have mindlessly cut-and-paste irrelevant material from your puppet masters.

Cheers

Joe Meert



 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 08:26 AM on May 9, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

GODYAG -

I sent Tas Walker an email with your questions.  Here is the response he gave:

Yes, most oil geologists use old-earth models but that doe not prove the models are correct.  

Old age geologists often say things like that, like they are testing old-earth' concepts with the drill bit every day.  What  they are actually doing is trying to understand the environment of deposition of the potential reservoir rocks and determine their relationship to the source rocks, the migration pathway, and the trap and seal rocks.  But in fact they are not really testing 'old earth' concepts.  

Take the concept of trap and seal rocks.  Some of the important factors would be things like their geometry, permeability, and spatial relationship to the source rocks.  Age is irrelevant.  If you consider the concept of 'migration pathway' the important factors are things like permeability, continuity, length of path, and cross sectional area.  Again, age is irrelevant.  Take the concept of 'source rocks'.  The important factors would include how much the rocks had been heated and whether the liquids/volatiles were still present or had been driven off.  Most people do not realize that it does not take millions of years to form oil.  Time is not the main variable in maturation of source rocks but temperature is probably the most important factor.  At suitable temperatures the reactions can occur in weeks.  So, once again, the concept of age is irrelevant.  The generation, transport and accumulation of oil using all these concepts (source rocks, etc) can be modeled within a timescale consistent with the 4,500 years since the Flood.    

And finally, the concept of environment of deposition.  It is important to realize that the environment of deposition is an interpretation of the  geological information, assuming that the sediment accumulated under conditions similar to what happens today.  However, the same data can be interpreted within a Flood model.  For example, a very large sedimentary delta could accumulate very quickly provided the sediment supply was kept up.  Also, if abundant vegetation was being transported into that delta it could be buried and preserved quickly.  And today, when we investigate the ancient buried delta using seismic methods we could easily interpret it as having accumulated slowly.  Fluid dynamic processes scale according to a number of factors such as Reynolds number, Froede Number etc.  So it is quite feasible that certain structures in the ancient rock record would have similar shape to structures being deposited today.  The rates of deposition may have been very different but the resultant geometries very similar. Again, time is not the main variable, but the geometrical factors such as Reynolds Number etc.  

A paleochannel is no problem.  During the Flood land would have emerged and re-submerged many times.  In the process paleochannels would have been cut, and quickly.  Long age geologists would interpret these using a modern analogue but they can also be interpreted using a Flood model.  And when we get to the detail of these deposits we repeatedly find that the Flood model fits better.

Recurring sequences from sand to silt to limestone are easily be explained by a periodic movement of water (a tide, or a repeated tsunamis, etc.) which started out energetically (sands) and reduced in energy (silts) and then became stagnate (limestones).  Or the limestones may have been deposited during a reversal in flow that brought water with a different chemical composition into the area.  Actually, the repeated sequences are usually easier to explain over a short time than a long time.

The stromatolites in Precambrian almost certainly do not represent an environment but fossils that were washed into place.  And they would not be creation rocks but Flood rocks.


I hope this helps, godyag.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 11:27 AM on May 10, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

JM: We can observe the results of decay in the past and present and know that it has been nearly constant.

Ok - well can you give me a link to the page that shows the radiometric readings from 1,000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, 100,000 years ago, and 1 million years ago?  That is, of course rhetorical.  No one made those measurements or observations thousands to millions of years ago.  

JM: JM: It would help if you would think and read outside of creationist propaganda.

How convincing would it be if I suggested that you think outside the evolutionary paradigm?  Mind you, that I have thought outside the creationist paradigm... I was taught nothing but evolution in the public school.  In fact, all of my reports and work were required to support evolution as well.
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 12:32 PM on May 10, 2004 | IP
Joe Meert

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gup20 at 11:27 AM on May 10, 2004 :
GODYAG -

I sent Tas Walker an email with your questions.  Here is the response he gave:


JM: Lol, the same Tas Walker who writes articles based on 200 dpi photos from the web rather than actually visiting the outcrops?  He's not a real geologist, he just plays one on AIG.


[color=navy]Yes, most oil geologists use old-earth models but that doe not prove the models are correct.
 

JM: It certainly proves they (old earth methods) are economically correct enough to warrant using for exploration.  


Old age geologists often say things like that, like they are testing old-earth' concepts with the drill bit every day.  What  they are actually doing is trying to understand the environment of deposition of the potential reservoir rocks and determine their relationship to the source rocks, the migration pathway, and the trap and seal rocks.  But in fact they are not really testing 'old earth' concepts.  


JM: YE-creationists like to say things like that, but in reality Tas Walker does not know what he is talking about  (irrelevant discussion of traps and seals snipped).   Geologists who work for oil companies DO INDEED use old earth evolutionary methods in exploration.  Tas hopes to dazzle you with a smattering of bald assertions that oil can be found using Noachian flood geology, but the reality is that no one uses such exploration methods because they are not fruitful.  Tas can whinge all he wants about how 'good' ye-creation models are, but they simply don't exist either in industry or in the scientific community.  They exist only in the minds of ye-creationist propagandists like Tas Walker (who, to the best of my knowledge has never worked in the oil industry as a geologist).  

Cheers

Joe Meert



(Edited by Joe Meert 5/10/2004 at 12:48 PM).
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 12:47 PM on May 10, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As its open season on Mr. Walker's opinions, I draw attention too this little gem:

"A paleochannel is no problem.  During the Flood land would have emerged and re-submerged many times."


Funny. As we are supposed to be sticking to the Bible here, he has forgotten:

-Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month-on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

Conclusion: an uninterputed period of flood water input, lasting 40 twenty-four hour days.

-Genesis 7:17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water.

Conclusion: continuous flood water input over the 40 day period. Water levels constantly increased throughout this period.

-Genesis 7:24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.

Conclusion: once the highest water level had been reached, it perisisted for a period of 150 twenty-four hour days.

-Genesis 8:1 But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded. 2 Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky. 3 The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down

Conculsion: this illuminates on the previous reference to 150 days of flooding after the rain. During this period the water level receeded at a steady rate. No further flood input water is mentioned.


Having checked what the Bible has to say on this matter, I find I am unable to accept the notion that "During the Flood land would have emerged and re-submerged many times." as Genesis is clear in showing a single period of continually rising water levels (40 days of rain and springs) and a single period of falling water levels at a steady rate (the following 150 days). No mention or inference is made to flucuating, oscillating or cyclic water levels during the Flood, so I must discount Mr. Walker's interpretation as speculation unsupported by the Biblical evidence.

I would predict that there would be two sets of massive scale erosional and depositional features, the younger cross cutting the older to a degree. I would also expect evidence of this on the vast majority of exposed land in the world.

However, I must immediately reject my own hypothesis as it clearly does not match the sedimentary sequences we observe today.

(Edited by OccamsRazor 5/10/2004 at 1:32 PM).


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 1:18 PM on May 10, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I would remind you guys that Tas is not here to defend his statements, so arguing with him is (besides being a waste of time) a little unfair.

Obviously I am personally not a geologist, or I would have answered godyag's geology questions myself.

Also - godyag - why does your name spell 'Gay Dog' backwards?  Not trying to disparrage you, mind you, I am just curious as to the story that goes with that name.  

For example - gup20 - I have had this screen name for many things since I was 20 years old.  Originally, I was trying to come up with a screen name.  My last name is 'Guptill', so a lot of people call me Gup.  In trying to create a screen name of Gup, I found that (at least on AIM) Gup was already taken.  It suggested I use a number after gup.  Being 20 years old at the time, I used Gup20, and the name has stuck ever since.  Having done clever things like using the name Tnalukcus Selppin in the past, I tend to read names backwards when they are odd.  Your name is gay dog backwards....  sooo - what's the story behind the name?
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 2:45 PM on May 10, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gup20
I would remind you guys that Tas is not here to defend his statements, so arguing with him is (besides being a waste of time) a little unfair.


I hope you secured Mr. Walker's permission before you quoted his views in absentia on a public discussion forum.

Thats an aside though, you are acting as his advocate here- so do you defend his reasoning or not?

Considering you frequently cut-and-paste other absent peoples writings into your arguements, I find it peculiar that you all of a sudden point out that it is "unfair" of anyone else to level criticism at what you use.


(Edited by OccamsRazor 5/10/2004 at 4:47 PM).


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 4:25 PM on May 10, 2004 | IP
godyag

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks for the e-mail check gup..

First things first, my name:

It is indeed gaydog backwards... I used to play (and still do once in a while) an on-line video game called Warcraft III, my screen name is supergaydog.  I got that name from working in Northern Canada doing seismic exploration (oil and gas exploration) from a bunch of seismic workers on my crew.  We all had ridiculous names, usually with homosexual connotations.  I am not really gay, it is just a nick name like "Big Daddy" or "crazy frank".  I think they got it from a South Park episode or something (the one with Big Gay Al).  Anyway, supergaydog was shortened to gaydog, which I reversed for this forum (sort of like an alias...).  My other nick names were "Crazy Ryan" and "Furion Stormrage"... I think back to those days with fond memories... LOL that was just last year.


What I understood from the article is this: Tas is saying is that the processes causing deposition behind creationism and evolution are the same... the main difference is the amount of time required for these processes.   He evidences this by stating correctly that the parameters used to classify an economic hydrocarbon formation are pressure, temp, size, geometry, type of trap permeability and a host of other physical parameters like the Rayleigh Number etc, and not how long it took for the formation to form.  I assume this parallel process idea holds for plate tectonics, igneous petrology, magnetic reversals etc since he evidenced stromatolites as marine sediments deposited during the flood.   Almost every creation article I have read has the same conclusion: that a geologic process in question is the same as in the evolutionary model, except it can occur within a 10 k year time frame.  So, since the processes behind the creation model and evolution model are assumed to be the same (i.e. paleo-channels in evolution framework are paleo-channles in creationism, and so on and so forth for all processes) it is a matter of determining how long a chain or processes took to occur.   What I see as the creation model, correct me if I am wrong, is the entire sedimentary evolution of the earth summed up into one flood.  I say the entire stedimentary evolution because stratigraphically stromatolites are at the bottom and are therefore assumed to be oldest, and no other fossils have ever been observed below them.   Now that is a lot of stuff to have occur in a one year time frame.  It is almost just as hard to explain all that occurring in a 1700 year time frame (year 0 to the flood event is 1700 years according to Tad).

Even if it is possible to prove that a batholith can be intruded and cool within a few thousand years, it becomes harder to explain how a batholith can be intruded, cool, and then intruded again, then cool etc, in a cyclical manor.   My undergraduate thesis was characterizing the geometry of one such intrusion.  There were 6 phases associated with the intrusion, between each phase the magma cooled enough to solidify, and then was re-intruded again.  The end result was like a target with six outer rings.  Now, not only did each of these phases solidify, but in the center are two breccia pipes caused by a another intrusive process.  The entire complex is situated on the edge of an even larger intrusion, and the outcrop is scoured by glaciation.  So, all these events would have had to have occurred between 0 and say 1700 years (when the flood occurred).  Even taking into account the rapid cooling presented in the above article this is still not enough time.  This is just one example of how complex these structures are.  It is one thing to produce an age range for a particular process but another thing entirely to say all processes occurred at about the same time.

OccamsRazor has some good points.  If a flood event did occur it would have had to have been a dynamic event with either multiple rises and fall in ocean depth, or huge rises and falls in the earths crust.  While considering all of these events occurring at once it struck me how much energy would be required to do this.  So, what is the driving force behind the flood?  What I mean is what is the mechanism of release and where does the energy come from to cause these huge crustal and mantle displacements?  Do you believe that God started this with his own hand, or did he just start a chain of events that resulted in a flood.  If this comes down to God intervening and adding energy from himself then the dynamics behind trying to explain the flood based on physical mechanisms is redundant.  If God simply set the earth up for this to happen then it is fine to try and explain it as we are trying to do.  Am I getting too philosophical here?

Another idea I had was to estimate the total volume of hydrocarbons in the earth, then calculate how much biomass would be required to produce the amount of hydrocarbons we observe.  Compare this to the estimated biomass of the earth right now... if there is much more biomass locked up in hydrocarbons than there exists now then it makes the flood event less likely.  If there was comparable amounts or less then it would tell us nothing.


-------
love,
godyag
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 5:19 PM on May 10, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OR: I hope you secured Mr. Walker's permission before you quoted his views in absentia on a public discussion forum.

Yes, I wrote him an email stating that godyag was asking a genuine question that I didn't have answers for, and could he write a response that I could post.  

OR: so do you defend his reasoning or not?

The point in stating that he is not here to argue on his behalf can be taken as the statment 'I am not prepared to argue on his behalf'.  If you keep the questions somewhat generalized I can often find the creationist view for you, but if you start asking specific geology questions I would need to seek a geology expert to answer them.

OR: Considering you frequently cut-and-paste other absent peoples writings into your arguements, I find it peculiar that you all of a sudden point out that it is "unfair" of anyone else to level criticism at what you use.

I think you can see how this situation is different, mainly that Tas' email was not a publicly posted article - it was an answer to a specific question.  Frankly, I think I may do him a disservice by 'answering in his stead' when I am clearly not an expert on geology.  Like I said... if I can find the answer for a question clearly posted in a public site, I will present it.  What I don't do is try to guess as to someone else's personal answer to a question.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 11:46 AM on May 11, 2004 | IP
Joe Meert

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gup20 at 11:46 AM on May 11, 2004 :
I think you can see how this situation is different, mainly that Tas' email was not a publicly posted article - it was an answer to a specific question.  Frankly, I think I may do him a disservice by 'answering in his stead' when I am clearly not an expert on geology.  Like I said... if I can find the answer for a question clearly posted in a public site, I will present it.  What I don't do is try to guess as to someone else's personal answer to a question.  


JM: Ahh, but neither is Tas Walker an expert in Geology.  He has a bachelors degree and to the best of my knowledge he has never worked as a geologist.  The only people claiming that Tas is an expert in geology are Tas and AIG.  Hardly ringing endorsements (either one).  Tas is a virtual unknown in geology and it is certainly a stretch to refer to him as an expert.  That's not to sleight his accomplishments in engineering where he appears (by his vitae) to be fairly successful.  The bestowment of the term 'expert' should not be whimsical, the person should have done something to make them an expert.  At the very least, a few internationally recognized scientific articles would be a minimum requirement.

Cheers

Joe Meert



 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 11:53 AM on May 11, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

godyag, the name story is truely amuzing.  

Now to your post -  while it may take me a day or two to find all the answers, I will say one thing for you to start mulling around -

godyag: What I see as the creation model, correct me if I am wrong, is the entire sedimentary evolution of the earth summed up into one flood.

Not necessarily true.  Remember, there must have been some pretty amazing things happening during the week of creation (which BTW was 'by the hand of God' as you pondered for the instigation of the flood).  Keep in mind the earth was originally completely covered with water - then God caused dry land to appear during the creation week.  Then ~1600-1700 years pass before the flood (Tas calculates it at about 1650 years).  So you have those geologic events to also contend with prior to the flood.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 12:55 PM on May 11, 2004 | IP
SA

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First off, I’d like to state that I am not an expert in geology or physics. The degrees I have are not related to any of the issues being discussed here. Having said that, I’d like to throw in my two pence worth.

Many YE creationists take issue with the isochron methods used to date geology. Roughly speaking, it’s done by comparing the ratio of the isotope of a specified element to the isotope it decays into, in the minerals found in the rock samples. This is compared the half-life of the element to give a date for the formation of the rock. We ascertain the half-life of a particular element by measuring how much it decays over a short space of time (several years or more) and extrapolate the results to find the half-life. But some argue that this extrapolation is unjustified. What if the rate of radioactive decay has not always been the same? This rate is assumed to be a constant, but if it were not then isochron dating would be inaccurate. We don’t know if it has always been the same so any dating method that relies on such extrapolation should be discounted, they say.

However, that’s about as far as it goes. The question of “what if the rate of radioactive decay has not always been the same,” is never addressed. As far as I can see, this is a perfect opportunity for YE creationists to do some real research. If the rate of radioactive decay is not constant, when did it change and by how much? What would the rate have to be for the isochron results to fit the creationist timescale? It would certainly have to be greater by very large orders of magnitude. Once it has been established how much greater it would have to be, we’d then have the beginnings of a hypothesis that could be tested. What would evidence would we expect to find if, at some point in history, the rate of decay was much greater than it is today? What effect would this huge increase in radioactivity, compared to today’s levels, have on the geology and on the organisms living on the Earth at the time? What mechanism could cause the rate of decay to change? And then there’s the task of explaining why current dating methods based on this extrapolation tie in with methods not based on extrapolation, like dendrochronology.

The argument that the half-life extrapolation is unjustified has been around for some time now, but to my knowledge no creationist scientist has jumped at this chance to actually do some creation science. Why is this? Perhaps someone has done the research and I am just not aware of it. If so I’d appreciate it if someone could post details of, or links to, the results.

 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 1:36 PM on May 11, 2004 | IP
Joe Meert

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from SA at 1:36 PM on May 11, 2004 :
First off, I’d like to state that I am not an expert in geology or physics. The degrees I have are not related to any of the issues being discussed here. Having said that, I’d like to throw in my two pence worth.


JM: But you're more than willing to dismiss subjects you know nothing about based on the opinions of those who know just a wee bit more?  There are no ye-creationists who are trained in isotopic dating (at least not at AIG or ICR).

Many YE creationists take issue with the isochron methods used to date geology.


JM: Isochron dating is used to date either rocks or minerals, not geology.


Roughly speaking, it’s done by comparing the ratio of the isotope of a specified element to the isotope it decays into, in the minerals found in the rock samples.


JM: That's a general description of radioactive decay and not necessarily a description of isochron dating.


This is compared the half-life of the element to give a date for the formation of the rock. We ascertain the half-life of a particular element by measuring how much it decays over a short space of time (several years or more) and extrapolate the results to find the half-life.


JM: That is not entirely true either.  The measured 1/2 lives are based upon trillions and trillions and trillions of decay events.  They are also supported by observations of supernovae and also the natural reactor at Oklo.  


But some argue that this extrapolation is unjustified. What if the rate of radioactive decay has not always been the same?


JM: Yes, what if it were much slower in the past?  That would mean that all our ages are way too young.  On the other hand, if it were fast enough to make young rocks look young, you get a problem with heat, see:


Roasting Adam



This rate is assumed to be a constant, but if it were not then isochron dating would be inaccurate. We don’t know if it has always been the same so any dating method that relies on such extrapolation should be discounted, they say.


JM: We can pretty safely say that it has not varied significantly.  Different isotopes decay via different methods (beta, neutron capture, alpha etc) and with different half-lives.  If decay were different in the past, then we would not expect to consistent radiometric ages using different isotopic systems, but we see that all the time.  In fact, old earth evolutionist Jan Peczkis (writing under his ye-creationist pseudonym John Woodmorappe) tried to claim that there were too many errors in radiometric ages, but Glenn Morton shows the folly of Woody's article here

Woody's Folly


However, that’s about as far as it goes. The question of “what if the rate of radioactive decay has not always been the same,” is never addressed. As far as I can see, this is a perfect opportunity for YE creationists to do some real research.


JM: Are you admitting that they have not so far?  I'm with you on that, but I just want to 'echo' this back to you (LOL).  Fact is that the non-constancy of decay has been explored many times in the published literature.  Nothing so far to support the sorts of change in decay that would be needed to make 6000 year old rocks look 4 billion years old.

If the rate of radioactive decay is not constant, when did it change and by how much?


JM: Yes, what if it were much slower in the past?


What would the rate have to be for the isochron results to fit the creationist timescale? It would certainly have to be greater by very large orders of magnitude.


JM: Yes, in fact so many orders of magnitude faster that it would have cooked the earth many times over (see Roasting Adam).  This is not lost on ye-creationists who have admitted that there is a heat problem associated with the notion of rapid decay.

Once it has been established how much greater it would have to be, we’d then have the beginnings of a hypothesis that could be tested.


JM: I've already done this for them and it's not pretty (see Roasting Adam).


What would evidence would we expect to find if, at some point in history, the rate of decay was much greater than it is today? What effect would this huge increase in radioactivity, compared to today’s levels, have on the geology and on the organisms living on the Earth at the time?


JM: They would be dead, molten husks if they could ever have lived at all (see Roasting Adam).

What mechanism could cause the rate of decay to change? And then there’s the task of explaining why current dating methods based on this extrapolation tie in with methods not based on extrapolation, like dendrochronology.


JM: There is no mechanism presently known that could accelerate decay rates to the levels needed to produce old looking rocks that are really young.  Furthermore, there is no mechanism known that could co-vary decay rates in such a way so as to produce the correlations we see in the data.  

Cheers

Joe Meert
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 2:16 PM on May 11, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hello SA! although not exactly what you asked for, here are some of the reasons given to support constant radioactive decay rates:

Constancy of radioactive decay rates

But I imagine JM may have more to say about that than I do...

Edit: I see he already has :P

Gup: Okayafter reading Godyag's post I got thinking.

So you would say (or the ye-geology would) there are ~1700 years of sedimentation to consider, plus the flood material, then the period between then and the present day.

We could postulate the ye-sedimentary record would go something like this:

6000 years before present (YBP)- ~4700 YBP: Pre-flood, Sedimentation consistent with local conditions.

~4700 YBP: The Flood, massive scale depostional and erosionary features, world wide distribution. Interuption of local sedimentation patterns. Two main sets of deposits/erosional features, one associated with the flooding itself, one with the receeding of the flood waters.

~4550 YBP- present:Post Flood, sedimentation once again consistent with local conditions.

Okay, I'm only catagorizing in very loose terms, but if the ye-geology model is robust, we should see such a pattern in stratigraphic columns throughout the world. We also do not need to worry ourselves with loss/deformation of significant areas of crust as the rate of movement measured is insufficent to have a significant effect in the last 4700 or so years. In other words, the flood should be very well preserved in modern day stratigraphy.


So, does anyone have a good link on some stratigraphic columns to see if there is any correlation at all?

(Edited by OccamsRazor 5/11/2004 at 2:39 PM).


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 2:24 PM on May 11, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Joe Meert at 2:16 PM on May 11, 2004 :
Quote from SA at 1:36 PM on May 11, 2004 :
First off, I’d like to state that I am not an expert in geology or physics. The degrees I have are not related to any of the issues being discussed here. Having said that, I’d like to throw in my two pence worth.


JM: But you're more than willing to dismiss subjects you know nothing about based on the opinions of those who know just a wee bit more?  There are no ye-creationists who are trained in isotopic dating (at least not at AIG or ICR).



Whoah there!  Slow down a bit Joe.  You may have missed it, but SA is on your side.  He's saying that ye-geology has this testable hypothesis, and they aren't doing the science.  He shares your opinions, not the ye creationists.
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 2:25 PM on May 11, 2004 | IP
Joe Meert

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Kronus at 2:25 PM on May 11, 2004 :
Quote from Joe Meert at 2:16 PM on May 11, 2004 :
Quote from SA at 1:36 PM on May 11, 2004 :
First off, I’d like to state that I am not an expert in geology or physics. The degrees I have are not related to any of the issues being discussed here. Having said that, I’d like to throw in my two pence worth.


JM: But you're more than willing to dismiss subjects you know nothing about based on the opinions of those who know just a wee bit more?  There are no ye-creationists who are trained in isotopic dating (at least not at AIG or ICR).



Whoah there!  Slow down a bit Joe.  You may have missed it, but SA is on your side.  He's saying that ye-geology has this testable hypothesis, and they aren't doing the science.  He shares your opinions, not the ye creationists.



JM: LOL, thought it was GUP.  Looking back, it is a strange post if GUP was the author.  Apologies for the wrong start; however, the remainder of the post does address the questions asked.

Cheers

Joe Meert


 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 3:03 PM on May 11, 2004 | IP
SA

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Joe MeertIsochron dating is used to date either rocks or minerals, not geology.

Rocks and minerals are not geology? Told you I wasn't an expert!

That is not entirely true either.  The measured 1/2 lives are based upon trillions and trillions and trillions of decay events.  They are also supported by observations of supernovae and also the natural reactor at Oklo.

I am aware of this. I was going for a rough overview, hence "roughly speaking".

We can pretty safely say that it has not varied significantly.  Different isotopes decay via different methods (beta, neutron capture, alpha etc) and with different half-lives.  If decay were different in the past, then we would not expect to consistent radiometric ages using different isotopic systems, but we see that all the time.  In fact, old earth evolutionist Jan Peczkis (writing under his ye-creationist pseudonym John Woodmorappe) tried to claim that there were too many errors in radiometric ages, but Glenn Morton shows the folly of Woody's article.

I know this. My point is that these are issues that YE geologists need to address but, to my knowledge, have not.

Are you admitting that they have not so far?  I'm with you on that, but I just want to 'echo' this back to you (LOL).  Fact is that the non-constancy of decay has been explored many times in the published literature.  Nothing so far to support the sorts of change in decay that would be needed to make 6000 year old rocks look 4 billion years old.
I'm not sure that 'admitting' is the right word. It implies that I am somehow responsible for what creationists do. From what I've seen, creationist 'research' amounts to little more than armchair quote-mining. But I've neither the time nor the inclination to read everything they publish so I might have missed something.

I'm not on anybody's side. All I'm attempting to do is to ascertain for myself the most likely explanation for the facts we observe. The views of mainstream science seem, to me at any rate, to be the most reasonable and logical.

KronusHe's saying that ye-geology has this testable hypothesis, and they aren't doing the science.

That's more or less what I was going for. But, not being an expert and not knowing the extent of creationist literature, I didn't want to be too accusative.

Hi OccamsRazor, thanks for the link, but I've read it already!


---

Joe MeertApologies for the wrong start; however, the remainder of the post does address the questions asked.

No worries! Thanks.
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 3:08 PM on May 11, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First, let me say hello SA and welcome to the discussion.  Your opinions are indeed welcome.  

The concept you are speaking of is the concept of 'uniformitarianism'.  Namely, that what we observe in the present is the key to interpreting the past.  This of course makes the assumption that 'nature' hasn't changed in billions of years.  Of course this is an ABSOLUTELY unverifyable principle - as you and JDM would probably agree - because we do not have any measurements from even hundreds of years ago, let alone thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, or billions of years ago.  Without these measurements we must make assumptions or try to extrapolate our 'educated guesses'.  Nothing can actually be 'proven'.  

JM: But you're more than willing to dismiss subjects you know nothing about based on the opinions of those who know just a wee bit more?  There are no ye-creationists who are trained in isotopic dating (at least not at AIG or ICR).

After no more than 45 seconds of reasearch -

Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. Geology (ICR)
He has a B.Sc. with first class honours in Applied Geology from the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia and a Ph.D. in Geology from the University of Sydney. He worked for a number of years in the mining industry in locations throughout Australia undertaking mineral exploration surveys and field research. He has also been a consultant research geologist for more than a decade to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization and the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission for internationally-funded research on the geology and geochemistry of uranium ore deposits as analogues of nuclear waste disposal sites. His primary research interests include radioisotopic methods for the dating of rocks, formation of igneous and metamorphic rocks, and ore deposits.


To the rest of your post, I would reply that there is more than 1 assumption that must be made in order for any radiometric dating method to work.  

In response to decay rate changes - our buddy Tas Walker - Radioactive decay rate depends on chemical environment

Your guys favorite - John Woodmorappe - Billion-fold Acceleration of Radioactivity
Demonstrated in Laboratory


RATE group reveals exciting breakthroughs!


OR:  We could postulate the ye-sedimentary record would go something like this:

Check out Tas Walker's Page.  It gives the chronologies you are looking for, as well as detailed descriptions of his model.  

The Creation of the World                   4004 BC
The World Wide Flood                         2348 BC
The Call of Abraham                            1921 BC
The Exodus from Egypt                       1491 BC
The Foundations of Temple Laid          1012 BC
The Destruction of Jerusalem                 586 BC
The Birth of Christ                                      4 BC









 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 4:16 PM on May 11, 2004 | IP
Joe Meert

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gup20 at 4:16 PM on May 11, 2004 :

After no more than 45 seconds of reasearch -

Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. Geology (ICR)
He has a B.Sc. with first class honours in Applied Geology from the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia and a Ph.D. in Geology from the University of Sydney. He worked for a number of years in the mining industry in locations throughout Australia undertaking mineral exploration surveys and field research. He has also been a consultant research geologist for more than a decade to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization and the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission for internationally-funded research on the geology and geochemistry of uranium ore deposits as analogues of nuclear waste disposal sites. His primary research interests include radioisotopic methods for the dating of rocks, formation of igneous and metamorphic rocks, and ore deposits.


JM: Nope, not good enough.  Isotopic dating is a research interest, but to the best of my knowledge he has never actually conducted geochronologic research on his own.  Most of his AIG stuff consists of collecting a sample and sending it to someone else to analyze.  All his publications deal with billion year old time scales.  Hardly the ally you first thought; however, that's what you get for only researching for 45 seconds.


Cheers

Joe Meert

 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 5:03 PM on May 11, 2004 | IP
Joe Meert

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gup20 at 4:16 PM on May 11, 2004 :

In response to decay rate changes - our buddy [url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/v14n1_radioact.asp]


JM: You get the 'I swallow everything written by ye-creationists without researching award.  THe 'billion fold acceleration' you speak of takes place in the Re-Os system and only in the plasma state (i.e. the interior of stars).  Hardly a ringer for the earth.

Cheers

Joe Meert
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 5:06 PM on May 11, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

SA wrote: Hi OccamsRazor, thanks for the link, but I've read it already!


Hmmmm... yeah, I think I should have probably figured that one out


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 7:01 PM on May 11, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The concept you are speaking of is the concept of 'uniformitarianism'.  Namely, that what we observe in the present is the key to interpreting the past.  This of course makes the assumption that 'nature' hasn't changed in billions of years.  Of course this is an ABSOLUTELY unverifyable principle - as you and JDM would probably agree - because we do not have any measurements from even hundreds of years ago, let alone thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, or billions of years ago.  Without these measurements we must make assumptions or try to extrapolate our 'educated guesses'.  Nothing can actually be 'proven'.


The thing I like about this line of reasoning (aside for the fact it is wrong, but I won't get sidetracked) is that is can be applied equally to "disprove" (I use that term very tentatively) the both the uniformitarian as well as the creationist viewpoint. If I so choose, I can say nothing can actually be proven in the creationist model as we cannot directly measure (for example) sedimentation rates before, during or after the flood.

Anyway, aside from that, I read through Mr. Walker's "Biblical Geological Model". While coming up with all manner of new terminology etc, it does not tie it into actual stratigraphic observations we have. He has a bit of a go with the Great Artesian Basin in Eastern Australia, but cites no actual evidence (aside from some qualitative references to dinosaur footprints- also why his constant reference in his articles to dinosaurs? he forgets to mention the vast majority of extinct life... I wonder why?).

How can you possibly accept such vague and unproven theories Gup?


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 7:48 PM on May 11, 2004 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.