Cordova and Runyon on the fossil record

No, that isn’t it.

You keep promising to explain that at some unspecified time in the future, but that time has never come so far. Feel free to try. Like Sal, you ignore all attempts to engage you. Why, for example, does melting fail to reset the clock in tektites?

What are you talking about? It’s not some kind of devious tactic, it’s clearly spelling out, for the sake of clarity, how the conversation went. The intention was to get you to see where you went of the rails instead of following the line of logic. If you disagree with my assessment in some way, you’re welcome to point it out.

I already gave you a link to the paper, shouldn’t that be enough? Do I really need to hold your hand through the process of finding the full text? I was actually under the impression you had already read it, since you so confidently accused me of misunderstanding it (and the other 2 I cited).

1 Like

Thank you! God bless you.

Just as it would bother me to not highlight the FACT most if not all Young Cosmos Cosmologies must fail as a matter of principle before my students, so it would also bother me not to raise grave SCIENTIFIC concerns about the mainstream views geological columns mechanism of formation and age. The above problems that Pittman highlights, if I didn’t mention it before my students, would bother my conscience. I"m also happy to pass on the objections to YEC/YFR as well as some of them are also very pointed.

If students asked me what the state of evidence is, I’d say, “we have apparently conflicting datapoints, but I have my beliefs and strong biases, but I’ve tried to appraise you all of the most important conflicts.” That’s about the most honest thing I can do.

No, it’s not the most honest thing you can do. Not even close.

Your Pitman ridiculous geology claim has been dealt with above. But like always you’ll ignore the actual scientific explanation and Gish gallop away.

1 Like

Sal, you place so much importance on Pittman’s erosion rate argument and the accuracy of his estimates of time while simultaneously dismissing every single scientific method of dating. Why would Pittman’s data be the one exception when you’ve already admitted that every means of measuring time is flawed?

1 Like

Put it here again. All I was able to open was the abstract. I want the full paper before we continue.

It seems to me that the events proposed by the YECers could not happen in a very short time span, such as a flood. These processes would mix up strata so quickly and completely that there really would be none.

And the energies involved to strip the earth of hundreds if not thousands of feet of ‘old’ strata, world wide would be phenomenal, yet gentle enough to allow whole carcasses of animals of every conceivable type and biome, plants and rest . . . How does the even begin to make sense? What kind of model predicts this?

1 Like

Here’s the link I originally gave you:
All that’s freely available from this link is the abstract, the full paper itself is behind a paywall. This is when you have to employ a smidgen of initiative, and do something crazy like, I don’t know, googling the paper’s title and clicking on literally the first hit to get the full PDF:

Do you see what I meant about hand-holding?


@stcordova, I think maybe the best we can do here is help you craft a disclaimer.

For example, your students should know that you have (almost) no training in biochemistry, that everything you present about biochemistry is filtered through a very misleading anti-evolution lens, and that almost every statement you make about DNA, RNA, proteins, enzymes, physical biochemistry, and the like is wrong. Sometimes in a small sense, sometimes completely so. Your students need to understand that you are teaching error-laden materials, and that they are better viewed as entertainment than educational.


Good! But thinking too small. The friction generated by all this shifting around of continents and layers is huge. By some estimates enough to melt the Earth’s crust. 4.5 billions years of radioactive decay would need to be compressed into a very short period of time. The resulting release of heat would turn the Earth into a ball of boiling magma. Changing the Fine-Structure Constant in a way to allow that rapid radioactive decay also disallows the chemistry that allows life to exist. There is no evidence of anything like this (for starters, we wouldn’t be alive if there were).

1 Like

Ok, I had 2-classes in biochemistry, top of the class in the 2nd semester, and I’m mentored by a Professor of BIochemistry, and he and I got an abstract published in a SECULAR journal of experimental biology in the molecular biology and biochemistry, and this professor feels I’m qualified to make a few statements about the topic and be his co-author!

Ok, so I know next to nothing, nevertheless this abstract is from the SECULAR journal FASEB:

And the lead author, Joe DeWeese, is a professor of biochemistry, is a reviewer of college textbooks, is a nationally recognized expert on TopoIsomerase, AND it would not surprise me if the Discovery Institute starts promoting the improbability of TopoIsomerase evolution in not too long. :slight_smile:

The diagram above of Post Translational modifications was featured in the poster session at the conference of Experimental Biology 2019 in Orlando was one I put together for the team.

More on-topic for this thread, he has no training whatsoever in geology or paleontology. And I include self-training.

1 Like

Sorry, Sal, but publishing an abstract is not real publishing. No peer review, in fact no oversight whatsoever. And this thread is supposed to be about the fossil record, if you will recall.

1 Like

Why? It comes after a whole bunch of other points that Sal has ignored completely. The Gish Gallop should not be encouraged.


None of this contradicts anything I stated in the disclaimer I have provided.

@stcordova, having the wherewithal to use a simple software package doesn’t make you a biochemist. It makes you a student, with many thousands of hours of work to do before you can begin to think you know or understand very much.

The people you claim to be teaching should know this, IMO.


Look, I’m going to teach some basic TEXTBOOK bio, and probability associated with this. I’m often just passing material from qualified Creationist professors of Biochemistry and Cellular biology, some of whom teach in secular universities and/or publish in secular journals.

That said, I could be mean and point out you flunked a few issues yourself on diffusion and brownian motion, or point out I had to set Dr. Harshman right on some issues about reader/writers/erases in chromatin modifications.

BUT, BUT, BUT – I’m not the issue here, the issue is the FACTS aren’t as friendly to the standard view of the geological column as claimed.

You’ve thrown a side bar about me, my qualifications, my motivations – those are irrelevant. I’ll tell my students:

For the sake of argument, assume the worst about me. That I’m a scoundrel, liar charlatan, clueless and ignorant. That doesn’t change the facts. Look at the facts your self, study in secular schools and learn. Ask your professors some of the questions I’m raising.

You did not.

Yes, that’s the issue! Stop wandering off into digressions.

1 Like

I really have no idea what you’re blathering about here and I have been following your exchange. His recap was, as far I can see, perfectly accurate of what you two have been arguing about.

I think you should take a break from this unseemly self-aggrandizing attitude and write something substantive back in response, if you are so able.

Are you?