I have heard of Glenn’s story. A good geophysicist, and an honest man who was never afraid of brutal facts.
Speaking of confirmation bias, I’m sure you have heard of Morton’s Demon.
1 Like
Well, whaddayathink.
I had a closer look at the TSZ thread that Sal linked to, and it turns out that he wrote exactly the same stuff 5 years ago, and it also turns out that I was there too and responded exactly like I did here, something I completely forgot about! A lot of people explained to Sal what was going on with the geology he questioned, and how what he claimed as problems aren’t problems at all.
Someone there asked Sal if he would go away without addressing other people’s replies, to just come back a month or two later with exactly the same points all over again. He was wrong. It didn’t take a month or two, it took 5 years.
This is ridiculous. I’m out. I will read other people’s responses because there is a lot of cool geology in there, but it is utterly pointless to engage with stcordova.
6 Likes
I’m with you. If Sal cannot carry on an reasonable discussion, I have better things to do,
1 Like
Because they have all the characteristics of wind-blown dunes. There is no such “confirmation bias”; that’s just your YEC bias and associated paranoia talking. Now clearly the orange layers are iron-stained. It appears that the white parts stick out a bit more, so they’re harder. Possibly more calcite cement, and perhaps that resists iron-staining? At any rate, it seems nearly certain that this is all diagenetic, not a result of deposition.
Depends on what you mean by “thought”.
That’s what I was thinking as well. The processes of lithification and reaction with the atmosphere have to be taken into account. There is no reason to think that the rocks were necessarily that color when they were deposited.
Then you really have no excuse for repeating the same YEC misrepresentations since you’ve already had the actual geology explained to you by multiple people.
1 Like
Woah woah woah. You’re assuming wind and sand dunes operated the same in the past as they do today. Your evolutionary bias is showing…
The Resconi paper on Borexino doesn’t work well to explain C14 in coals.
Coal is about 1.7% nitrogen by weight. Got to figure 3.7 in Resconi’s paper.
Finding levels of Uranium greater than 20 ppm is rare (google to confirm), but even being generous graphs like 3.7 would suggest at best the Nitrogen being converted to C14 by Uranium and Thorium is 10^-18. A 57,300 year supposed carbon date has a trace amount of on order of 10^-15.
So again, the Resconi paper cited earlier isn’t convincing evidence of a radiogeneic explanation, and certainly fails for diamonds.
Professor of Geology at Cedarville University, Steve Austin cites ripples in the planar lamination ruling out lamination by slow vertical acccumulation. Go to 49 minutes in the video:
The problem is the source of the sediements having to spread out over millions of years. This would imply the fossils near the sedimentary source got entoumbed earlier than the ones far from the sedimentary source.
There’s no guarantee the sediments will spread out from the source. What are the supposed erosion rates? That Permian Basin is gigantic. Consider how big the source of the sediments has to be.
I’m struggling to understand these objections, they seem to apply much more to the idea of erosion and sedimentation all happening within a year than to the normal processes in geology!
Your basic problem remains that you don’t have a clue about geological processes. In shallow seas, sediment moves around all the time in large volumes because of currents and wave action. Tons of sediment arrives in the basin at multiple input points, all derived from the exposed hinterland.
The sand, silt and clay then gets dispersed by the currents and waves. Organisms live on the sea floor and in the water column, eventually they all end up on the sea floor when they die, and their remains will be buried by the sediment. A lot of the remains will be scavenged and disappear, but enough will remain to be entombed in the sediment and eventually end up below the oxygenated zone and out of reach of scavengers. Eventually diagenesis and remineralisation will form fossils.
One of the devastating problems you face with the flood idea is the exquisite sorting of marine microfossils. You really need to learn about those tiny creatures (most are microscopic in scale), their morphologies and how they are sorted in the geological column.
There is no mechanical reason for their sorting at all - had they all lived at the same time they would have been found all together in death. Yet they are not - far from it. Their systematic distribution is used routinely for determining where we are in the sedimentary column and geological time. They have great diagnostic an predictive value, scientifically and industrially. These little creatures kill off your absurd time scale all by themselves.
Have a read through this for a start.
2 Likes
Sal reappears with a new bit of Gish galloping, having forgotten or ignored everything previously said, including the things he was going to think about.
5 Likes
Hey Sal, why don’t you get Professor of Geology at Cedarville University Steve Austin to give you a YEC explanation for the angular unconformities and infilled paleochannels you were shown? Or does that still require more intellectual honesty than you are capable of mustering?
1 Like
Has anyone managed to watch the video from Stone-cold Steve Austin yet? My ambitions do not extend in that direction.
Sal reappears with a new bit of Gish galloping, having forgotten or ignored everything previously said, including the things he was going to think about.
…
Has anyone managed to watch the video from Stone-cold Steve Austin yet? My ambitions do not extend in that direction.
I’m working on a visualization tool that will help animate the sort of ideas (and more) that Dr. Austin is talking about.
He describes things like Stokes Law, Kelvin Helmholtz instability, Boycott separation, and Flocculation, etc. If someone wants a serious argument for the youth of the fossil record and Noah’s, this is a serious argument by a professor of Geology.
But if you wish to ignore what I put on the table to support my points by making accusations of Gish Galloping, that’s up to you.
I think the points I’m putting on the table have precedence or at least equal in priority to what the professional geologists here have said.
If you want to ignore the huge amount of geologic evidence you’ve been shown in favor of silly YEC hand waves and make yourself look intellectually dishonest, that’s up to you.
The angular unconformities and infilled paleochannels will still be here Sal, waiting for you to deal with them.
1 Like
I scanned it. Seems to be a presentation he gave at a Creationist conference where he Gish galloped his way before an audience of non-technical YECs. The general theme was “this specific geologic formation I can hand-wave away with this big sciencey term, therefore the entire planet’s geology was created 4500 years ago in Da Flud.”
Typical BS YEC apologetics, nothing new.
You are wrong. You have ignored almost everything anyone has said, including responses to your previous challenges. That’s how a Gish gallop works. Why should anyone bother responding when you’ll just ignore the response?
2 Likes
I said they were good objections, but I didn’t say they were conclusive. What else would you like me to say, that it actually proved the fossil record is old and overturned the anomalies that still remain. I just put some more anomalies on the table, like ripple laminations.
I don’t have to overturn each and every objection to make a case because you all haven’t been able to overturn each and every point I’ve made starting with the obvious problem of the Permian Basin I’ve been pointing out since 2015, and should be obvious if one would consider it. But, since some people don’t seem to see the problem, I’m trying to animate the problem to make it clearer.
Btw, you want to argue lamination happens over long stretches miles by wind? You get an orange layer followed by a white layer, and then after millions of years we suddenly get these layers bent? You don’t see the problem with that?
You have your faith belief that wind can make layers like that. I respect your faith beliefs, but they aren’t based on reasonable inferences.
Everyone can see the problem with your disingenuous approach Sal. You ignore 99.9% of the evidence and harp on a few cases where you make YEC hand-waves.
You do however show conclusively how little truth and honesty mean to you. In that regard you are a great exemplar for YEC “science”.
1 Like
Yes. Everything you have been told vastly outweighs any supposed anomalies, many of which are just your misunderstandings. The Permian Basin is a problem only based on your ignorance of geology. You have ignored almost everything: radiometric dating, structural geology, biostratigraphy, the fossil succession, and so on. Those are big things, which you oppose with a few little questions as if they were of the same magnitude.
What you see as “bending” is just crossbedding in the initial deposition. I’m pretty sure the orange is just a surface iron stain. Why some layers are stained and others are not is an interesting question, but it’s not a color difference in initial deposition. Most of your other “challenges” to mainstream geology are similarly a product of your personal ignorance.
Layers like that can be observed in modern sand dunes. No faith required.