Hello and welcome to TheologyWeb – theology debate with a serious dose of fun! It has been our goal to create one of the best and most innovative discussion sites on the Net. Please visit our forums where we debate and discuss everything from religion, politics, lifestyle, pop culture, to who is the coolest member of the moderating team. Register now and join in the fun, its free, easy, and makes Dee Dee Warren happy.
*This site is best viewed in Mozilla Firefox with a minimum display resolution of 1024x768.
One line of thought I did not pursue in my debate with Glenn concerns the geological data underpinning the Messinian Flood scenario. I largely accepted that scenario because other issues appeared more pressing. At that time, I was aware that there was a case for revision. However, I have since read a paper by Hardie and Lowenstein that questions the whole scenario – and I hope it will be of interest to discuss some aspects of their paper.
As a starter, here is the abstract:
Did the Mediterranean Sea Dry Out During the Miocene? A Reassessment of the Evaporite Evidence from DSDP Legs 13 and 42A Cores
Lawrence A. Hardie and Tim K. Lowenstein
Journal of Sedimentary Research; July 2004; v. 74; no. 4; p. 453-461.
The idea that the Mediterranean Sea dried out completely during the late Miocene (Messinian, 5-6 Ma) is now widely accepted. This idea, first published in 1972 (Hsü 1972a; Hsü 1972b) grew out of the interpretation by Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP) scientists that the evaporites recovered from beneath the floor of the Mediterranean by drilling on DSDP Legs 13 (1970) and 42A (1975) were of shallow-water origin. Since that time, there have been a number of advances in understanding of evaporite depositional processes, and with this in mind, we have reexamined the evidence provided by the DSDP evaporite cores. We show that the case for deposition of the Miocene evaporites of the sub-Mediterranean under shallow-water conditions is based on interpretations that are either equivocal or incorrect. Several features of these evaporites used by the DSDP workers as evidence of shallow-water conditions are more compatible with deposition under deep-water (below wave base) conditions, and others can only be considered as of uncertain origin. In addition, coring has sampled only the upper few tens of meters of the evaporites, a factor that seriously limits any interpretation of the origin of the deposit as a whole. In view of these findings, we suggest that the question of the origin of the Miocene evaporites beneath the floor of the Mediterranean Sea be reexamined by the geologic and oceanographic communities.
The first point I want to make is that these authors are much more aware than most that we must consider models involving the deep-water deposition of “evaporites”. There is a danger of thinking that “evaporites” means dessication – but this is not the case. There is a problem with terminology here, as the descriptive term used for these deposits steers people to think in a certain way.
The authors set out to examine “the evidence on which the conclusion that the Mediterranean Sea dried up during the Messinian was based.” They point out much progress has been made since the DSDP findings were published and the Messinian salinity crisis scenario was developed. They identify six evidences used to support that scenario. The following excerpt comes from the section headed: The Messinian Evaporites Beneath the Mediterranean Sea: Shallow-Water or Deep-Water Deposits?
Hsü (1972a, p. 384) emphasized that "the question as to whether a particular body of evaporites was precipitated from a deep body of layered brines or from a desiccating shallow pool must be settled through a study of the evaporites themselves." In this vein Hsü (1972a, p. 386) concluded for the Messinian evaporites beneath the Mediterranean that "the mineralogical, petrographical, sedimentological, and geochemical investigations of the associated evaporite samples yielded conclusive evidence for their deposition in shallow waters or under subaerial conditions." This evidence from the sub-Mediterranean Messinian evaporites is based mainly on the presence of: (1) nodular and "chicken-wire" anhydrite interpreted to have been formed in a sabkha environment, (2) depositional cycles interpreted to be the result of progradation of a coastal sabkha, (3) halite crystals interpreted to be ephemeral salt-pan "hoppers," (4) "stromatolitic" lamination interpreted to have been formed by "algal" (cyanobacterial) mats in the peritidal zone, (5) a single crack in halite, interpreted as evidence of desiccation, and (6) a "bullseye" pattern in plan view consisting of a halite-potash zone at the basin center surrounded by outer zones of gypsum-anhydrite and carbonates, interpreted to be the result of progressive drying out of a shallow brine body. Summaries of the evidence put forward by the DSDP project scientists are given by Hsü et al. (1973a), Hsü et al. (1978), and Garrison et al. (1978). We examined all the cores from DSDP Legs 13 and 42A (see Fig. 1) used by the DSDP project scientists. Below we discuss each of the six lines of evidence listed above.
In each case, they show that the evidence is inconclusive. Sometimes it actually points to a deep-water scenario, not a basin desiccation scenario.
Since we have discussed stromatolites recently on this forum, it is worth drawing attention to their comments on that source of evidence. This is from the section on "Stromatolitic" Lamination.
What the DSDP project scientists called "algal stromatolites" are flat to wavy laminated anhydrite, gypsum, and dolomitic mudstone with dark partings, or are wavy dark films around anhydrite nodules, found in the cores at a number of the drilling sites across the Mediterranean Sea (Sites 124, 132, 371, 372, 374, 376, Fig. 1; see, for example, Friedman 1973; Garrison et al. 1978). The DSDP scientists argued that these "stromatolites," together with traces of what appear to be "algal" (cyanobacterial) remains, prove that the laminites in the Messinian evaporites were deposited in shallow water within the photic zone (Hsü et al. 1978, p. 1069).
[snip]
As Dean et al. (1975) pointed out, diagenesis of laminated and thin-bedded calcium sulfates originally deposited in deep water is capable of producing anhydrite with "stromatolitic" layering and a nodular fabric easily mistaken for sabkha anhydrite.
In other words, these structures may “look” like stromatolites, but a more rigorous examination shows them to be abiogenic.
We can look at other evidences if there is interest, but at this stage, I just want to flag this up as an issue. Here is a section from their Discussion and Conclusions.
On the basis of our examination of the DSDP Legs 13 and 42A cores of the Messinian evaporites beneath the floor of the deep Mediterranean it is our view that the evidence presented by the DSDP scientists for the shallow-water origin of these evaporites is equivocal and is far from being the "conclusive evidence" it is claimed to be (Hsü 1972a, p.386). A number of the features of these evaporites presented as evidence of shallow-water conditions are, in fact, more compatible with deposition under deep-water (below wave base) conditions, while others can only be considered as of uncertain origin.
[snip]
It is important to recognize that while seismic profiles suggest that the sub-Mediterranean Messinian evaporites in the basin center may be 1.5-1.8 km thick (Leenhardt 1973; Mulder 1973; Montadert et al. 1978), the DSDP cores penetrated only a small part of the upper stratigraphic units of the evaporite body (only tens of meters for the gypsum-anhydrite units and literally only tens of centimeters of the halite). Until we have deep cores that penetrate the entire evaporite section we cannot hope to unravel more from existing DSDP cores than the depositional history of the very last phases of the Messinian evaporite body that lies beneath the floor of the Mediterranean Sea. What we read from these last stages may be quite unlike what went on during the time when the bulk of the Messinian evaporites were being deposited in the Mediterranean basin. We must add to this that there is far from a general agreement among workers as to whether the Mediterranean basin was in reality a deep basin during Miocene times. The present-day distribution of Miocene evaporites in and around the Mediterranean basin spans a vertical range of almost 5 km (Sonnenfeld 1975, fig. 3), which is attributed by some workers to major vertical tectonic movements in Plio-Pleistocene times (see, for example, Nesteroff 1973, p. 691; Stanley et al. 1974; Sonnenfeld 1975, 1984, p. 91-93). The possibility that post-Miocene vertical tectonic movements may have dropped the floor of the Mediterranean by as much as 2.5 km during Plio-Pleistocene times (Mulder 1973; Stanley et al. 1974; Montadert et al. 1978) makes it even more compelling to recognize that the problem of the origin and significance of the Messinian evaporites of the Mediterranean is far from settled. Not only is the shallow-water interpretation of the sub-Mediterranean Messinian evaporites in question, but their deep-basin setting is not unequivocally established. Furthermore, it remains entirely possible that during the Messinian the Mediterranean was a complex of smaller structural basins, each with their own tectonic and hydrologic histories and hence each likely to have had a different history of evaporite deposition, perhaps some shallow, others deep, yet others alternating between shallow and deep. Clearly, understanding of the Messinian evaporites must await resolution of the tectonic history of the Mediterranean basin and its component sub-basins.
It appears to me that this issue is instructive just because the Messinian Flood scenario has made a considerable impact in the geological world. Here we have a widely accepted scenario (Hsu wrote that “future generations of schoolchildren will be taught to consider the dessication of the Mediterranean as gospel truth”) - but the truth may be dramatically different. One lesson I would like us to learn is to develop our ideas with a bit more humility, recognizing that science is fallible and that we can only do our best with the evidences we have. The crusading dogmatism that characterises many contributions on forums like this is out of place.
It also appears to me that this paper raises some fundamental questions for Glenn. He has built his flood model on the desiccation of the Mediterranean Basin – but this paper shows that the whole scenario is in the melting pot. It may emerge that there never was a location in the Basin where antediluvians could live. I am interested in how Glenn is going to handle this situation.
It appears to me that this issue is instructive just because the Messinian Flood scenario has made a considerable impact in the geological world. Here we have a widely accepted scenario (Hsu wrote that “future generations of schoolchildren will be taught to consider the dessication of the Mediterranean as gospel truth”) - but the truth may be dramatically different. One lesson I would like us to learn is to develop our ideas with a bit more humility, recognizing that science is fallible and that we can only do our best with the evidences we have. The crusading dogmatism that characterises many contributions on forums like this is out of place.
It seems, David, that scientists have been exploring these issues since at least 1991. An excellent overview of the primary literature is available here. This appears to be a bibliography for a class whose objective is "To examine critically the theories of origin of the late Miocene evaporites of the Mediterranean Sea, in particular considering the model of a deep desiccated basin." One particular paper cited is:
Schmalz, R.F. 1991. The Mediterranean Salinity Crisis: alternative hypothesis. In: Mediterranean Messinian and other evaporites (Friedman, G.M. ed), Carbonates and Evaporites, 6, 121-126. [Argues that most modern evaporite environments are small, thin and dirty. The Mediterranean is an excellent model for deep evaporite deposition. Isolation from the Atlantic with continued inflow from the Black Sea would evaporate the Mediterranean to dryness in 2000yrs. Deposit would be 42m thick with sedimentation rate of 21mm per annum. Alternatively Atlantic seawater flowed in at a rate just sufficient to replace the volume of water lost by evaporation. Under these conditions the entire basin will be saturated with gypsum after 6000 yrs. After 18000 yrs the basin will be filled to sill depth with halite-saturated brine. Then - no limits to halite accumulation. See also Hsu's papers and the Selli, R. 1985 tectonic model in: Stanley, D.J and Wezel, F.C. Geological Evolution of the Mediterranean Basin.
Of course, as Champion of Science, you admonish us that "we can only do our best with the evidences we have". Yet strangely you seem to overlook the very evidence that falsifies your cherished young-earth views:
Krijgsman, W., Hilgen, F.J., Raffi, I., Sierro, F.J. and Wilson, D.S. 1999. Chronology, causes and progression of the Messinian salinity crisis. Nature, London, 400 (6745), 652-655. Abstract: The Messinian salinity crisis is widely regarded as one of the most dramatic episodes of oceanic change of the past 20 or so million years. Earliest explanations were that extremely thick evaporites were deposited in a deep and desiccated Mediterranean basin that had been repeatedly isolated from the Atlantic Ocean, but elucidation of the causes of the isolation - whether driven largely by glacio-eustatic or tectonic processes - have been hampered by the absence of an accurate time frame. Here we present an astronomically calibrated chronology for the Mediterranean Messinian age based on an integrated high-resolution stratigraphy and 'tuning' of sedimentary cycle patterns to variations in the Earths orbital parameters. We show that the onset of the Messinian salinity crisis is synchronous over the entire Mediterranean basin, dated at 5.96 +/- 0.02 million years ago. Isolation from the Atlantic Ocean was established between 5.59 and 5.33 million years ago, causing a large fall in Mediterranean water level followed by erosion (5.59-5.50 million years ago) and deposition (5.50-5.33 million years ago) of non-marine sediments in a large 'Lago Mare' (Lake Sea) basin. Cyclic evaporite deposition is almost entirely related to circum-Mediterranean climate changes driven by changes in the Earths precession, and not to obliquity-induced glacio-eustatic sea-level changes. We argue in favour of a dominantly tectonic origin for the Messinian salinity crisis, although its exact timing may well have been controlled by the 400-kyr component of the Earths eccentricity cycle.
Why the double standard David? Why do you accept the science when it falsifies Glenn's hypotheses but reject it when it falsifies your own?
This does not seem like the proper behavior of a true Champion.
"Of primary importance is the fact that the Bible is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."
It seems, David, that scientists have been exploring these issues since at least 1991. An excellent overview of the primary literature is available here. This appears to be a bibliography for a class whose objective is "To examine critically the theories of origin of the late Miocene evaporites of the Mediterranean Sea, in particular considering the model of a deep desiccated basin."
Yes, sure. The data has not all supported one scenario, and I welcome the way numerous scholars have kept the issues open.
Of course, as Champion of Science, you admonish us that "we can only do our best with the evidences we have". Yet strangely you seem to overlook the very evidence that falsifies your cherished young-earth views:
Every word here is loaded! Please grasp the significance of conflicting interpretations of data among the scientists who have worked on the Messinian crisis.
Why the double standard David? Why do you accept the science when it falsifies Glenn's hypotheses but reject it when it falsifies your own?
This does not seem like the proper behavior of a true Champion.
Falsification of hypotheses is not like a switch: true or false. I recommend Thomas Kuhn on this.
One line of thought I did not pursue in my debate with Glenn concerns the geological data underpinning the Messinian Flood scenario. I largely accepted that scenario because other issues appeared more pressing. At that time, I was aware that there was a case for revision. However, I have since read a paper by Hardie and Lowenstein that questions the whole scenario – and I hope it will be of interest to discuss some aspects of their paper.
As a starter, here is the abstract:
The first point I want to make is that these authors are much more aware than most that we must consider models involving the deep-water deposition of “evaporites”. There is a danger of thinking that “evaporites” means dessication – but this is not the case. There is a problem with terminology here, as the descriptive term used for these deposits steers people to think in a certain way.
The authors set out to examine “the evidence on which the conclusion that the Mediterranean Sea dried up during the Messinian was based.” They point out much progress has been made since the DSDP findings were published and the Messinian salinity crisis scenario was developed. They identify six evidences used to support that scenario. The following excerpt comes from the section headed: The Messinian Evaporites Beneath the Mediterranean Sea: Shallow-Water or Deep-Water Deposits?
In each case, they show that the evidence is inconclusive. Sometimes it actually points to a deep-water scenario, not a basin desiccation scenario.
I will be doing some traveling and moving over the next few weeks. I will have periods of not being able to get to the internet. By mid April I hope to be in Beijing but I don't know how long it will take me to get internet.
Concerning this david, I read the article a couple of months ago but am not where I can double check it now. But one thing I noted is that you are mis-re0presenting what is meant by deep-water. Here, from your own quotation is this:
Note that below wave base is not necessarily that deep. It might have only been 30-50 feet deep. MonkeyBoy noted that some think that the Mediterranean never fully dried out. Continued inflow of some Atlantic waters would still result in the deposition of thick salt. I would probably be in agreement with that, but that doesn't mean that the sea level wasn't kilometers lower then than now. I think the continued influx of atlantic waters is what eventually eroded the dam in the Gibraltar area which caused the collapse of the dam to a depth of 1000 m as noted by paleo in the benthic forams immediately above the Miocene desert deposits. There would have been a saline sea, like the Great Salt Lake, and other areas with fresh water flowing in from the rivers. I don't really care and it is irrelevant to my thesis whether or not every last drop of water evaporated from the Mediterranean. You have erected a nice, but useless stawman (which is your usual methodology).
Since we have discussed stromatolites recently on this forum, it is worth drawing attention to their comments on that source of evidence. This is from the section on "Stromatolitic" Lamination.
In other words, these structures may “look” like stromatolites, but a more rigorous examination shows them to be abiogenic.
Yawn, so what, David? Why exactly does abiogenic automatiucally mean the things were deposited in 1 hour 16 minutes and 34 seconds as you need in your flood model?
We can look at other evidences if there is interest, but at this stage, I just want to flag this up as an issue. Here is a section from their Discussion and Conclusions.
No, david, you don't just want to flag it up. YOu want to use it as your escape hatch. (sorry for the bad typing I am at my son's and he has the strangest ergonomic keyboard that might be good for your hands, but is terrible for typing.)
It appears to me that this issue is instructive just because the Messinian Flood scenario has made a considerable impact in the geological world. Here we have a widely accepted scenario (Hsu wrote that “future generations of schoolchildren will be taught to consider the dessication of the Mediterranean as gospel truth”) - but the truth may be dramatically different. One lesson I would like us to learn is to develop our ideas with a bit more humility, recognizing that science is fallible and that we can only do our best with the evidences we have. The crusading dogmatism that characterises many contributions on forums like this is out of place.
David, you dogmatically refuse to believe anything which might alter your viewpoint. And precisely why is the dogmatism of avoiding data, and the dogmatism of seeking any reason to avoid logical conclusions so much better? Your dogmatism is that there MUST be a global flood, so you are more dogmatic than those you accuse it of.
It also appears to me that this paper raises some fundamental questions for Glenn. He has built his flood model on the desiccation of the Mediterranean Basin – but this paper shows that the whole scenario is in the melting pot. It may emerge that there never was a location in the Basin where antediluvians could live. I am interested in how Glenn is going to handle this situation.
I know this might be difficult, but if you had actually understood my book when you read it, you might have seen that I discuss a waterfall at the Gibraltar end of the Mediterranean allowing the influx of Atlantic water into the basin. But of course, in your endless search for strawmen with which to reject anything logical or scientific, you might have missed it.
I really want to laugh at your disingenuousness here, DAvid. You take a quote which says that the basin might have deposited salt below wave base (which as any sedimentologist can tell you isnt' all that deep, and act as if it is talking about 1000-5000 feet of water. and then you wonder how I will handle it.
Are you aware that Hippos walked down the Nile, and up to Cyprus during this time? Are you not remembering some of the fossils I cited things like insects, and tree leaves being found in sediments deposited on the Mediterranean floor? Of course, you wouldn't remember that. I forgot you found an article which you can use to twist all data and you no longer have to remember any of the other data you have been spoonfed with. Sorry David, this approach of yours is typical hogwash YEC thinking which isolates one fact, stretches it or squeezes it to fit the shoe you want the fact to fit in and then you ignore everything else in the entire universe so that you can declare a successful fit. It is sad a guy as smart as you acts like this. It is also shameful.
Tiggy has earned the honor of being the only person whom I have ever put on the ignore list. Congratulations, Tiggy. I don't see a single thing you write.
Banned forever by the Amer. Scientific Affiliation, a Christian Scientific Group, for the crime of discussing the ethics of ignoring scientific data.
Every word here is loaded! Please grasp the significance of conflicting interpretations of data among the scientists who have worked on the Messinian crisis.
Please grasp the significance that, of all of the conflicting interpretations of the data, not one involves the earth being as young as your cherished recolonization model requires.
Falsification of hypotheses is not like a switch: true or false. I recommend Thomas Kuhn on this.
Switch, balance scale, or veg-o-matic, it doesn't matter. ALL of the scientific evidence falsifies your young earth model and NONE supports it. Why do you so stubbornly refuse to follow the evidence where it leads?
"Of primary importance is the fact that the Bible is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."
But one thing I noted is that you are mis-re0presenting what is meant by deep-water. Here, from your own quotation is this:
Note that below wave base is not necessarily that deep. It might have only been 30-50 feet deep.
Yes, that is correct. I do not see any misrepresentation here, and certainly none was intended.
I don't really care and it is irrelevant to my thesis whether or not every last drop of water evaporated from the Mediterranean. You have erected a nice, but useless stawman (which is your usual methodology).
I'm happy for others to assess whether this is the case. From my perspective, I think the paper if far more chllenging to your thesis than you are allowing.
Yawn, so what, David? Why exactly does abiogenic automatiucally mean the things were deposited in 1 hour 16 minutes and 34 seconds as you need in your flood model?
You were the one, in another thread, who put a lot of weight on the appearance of these structures. I think that you can learn a few things by taking the comments in this paper more seriously.
David, you dogmatically refuse to believe anything which might alter your viewpoint. And precisely why is the dogmatism of avoiding data, and the dogmatism of seeking any reason to avoid logical conclusions so much better? Your dogmatism is that there MUST be a global flood, so you are more dogmatic than those you accuse it of.
My first contribution to our debate pointed to geological data re the global flood. I think that not a few geologists also think that the Earth was covered in water during the Late Hadean/Early Archaean. This is not a case of me avoiding data.
I know this might be difficult, but if you had actually understood my book when you read it, you might have seen that I discuss a waterfall at the Gibraltar end of the Mediterranean allowing the influx of Atlantic water into the basin. But of course, in your endless search for strawmen with which to reject anything logical or scientific, you might have missed it.
I really want to laugh at your disingenuousness here, DAvid. You take a quote which says that the basin might have deposited salt below wave base (which as any sedimentologist can tell you isnt' all that deep, and act as if it is talking about 1000-5000 feet of water. and then you wonder how I will handle it.
Are you aware that Hippos walked down the Nile, and up to Cyprus during this time? Are you not remembering some of the fossils I cited things like insects, and tree leaves being found in sediments deposited on the Mediterranean floor? Of course, you wouldn't remember that. I forgot you found an article which you can use to twist all data and you no longer have to remember any of the other data you have been spoonfed with. Sorry David, this approach of yours is typical hogwash YEC thinking which isolates one fact, stretches it or squeezes it to fit the shoe you want the fact to fit in and then you ignore everything else in the entire universe so that you can declare a successful fit. It is sad a guy as smart as you acts like this. It is also shameful.
All I wrote was: "It also appears to me that this paper raises some fundamental questions for Glenn. He has built his flood model on the desiccation of the Mediterranean Basin – but this paper shows that the whole scenario is in the melting pot. It may emerge that there never was a location in the Basin where antediluvians could live. I am interested in how Glenn is going to handle this situation."
I am not much wiser after reading the above comments. I think you are prepared to allow a more complex Messinian salinity crisis/flood, but still want to hold on to the main thesis. Whether you can continue to do this as research progresses is something I shall be interested to follow.
Yes, that is correct. I do not see any misrepresentation here, and certainly none was intended.
Then please explain why you think this is such a horrible problem for my views? So what if there is a 300 foot lake in a 15000 foot hole in the ground? What in that would prevent people from living there? Your logic is well, illogical.
I'm happy for others to assess whether this is the case. From my perspective, I think the paper if far more chllenging to your thesis than you are allowing.
as usual you don't explain why.
You were the one, in another thread, who put a lot of weight on the appearance of these structures. I think that you can learn a few things by taking the comments in this paper more seriously.
First off David, just because someone claims something in a paper, doesn't automatically mean that they are right. I believe that they are biogenic but if abiogenic the only difficulty for me would be if they were deposited in 1 hr,
34 min and 16 sec. They don't help your case and they don't hurt mine
My first contribution to our debate pointed to geological data re the global flood. I think that not a few geologists also think that the Earth was covered in water during the Late Hadean/Early Archaean. This is not a case of me avoiding data.
You once again cite what you think supports your position ignoring that which doesn't. I would say that not a few geologists also think that there was no macroscopic animals living in the Hadean either but you won't cite them, now will you?
All I wrote was: "It also appears to me that this paper raises some fundamental questions for Glenn. He has built his flood model on the desiccation of the Mediterranean Basin – but this paper shows that the whole scenario is in the melting pot. It may emerge that there never was a location in the Basin where antediluvians could live. I am interested in how Glenn is going to handle this situation."
I am not much wiser after reading the above comments. I think you are prepared to allow a more complex Messinian salinity crisis/flood, but still want to hold on to the main thesis. Whether you can continue to do this as research progresses is something I shall be interested to follow.
David, I didn't change my position today. You just merely didn't understand my position outlined in my book. The problem is yours, not mine.
Tiggy has earned the honor of being the only person whom I have ever put on the ignore list. Congratulations, Tiggy. I don't see a single thing you write.
Banned forever by the Amer. Scientific Affiliation, a Christian Scientific Group, for the crime of discussing the ethics of ignoring scientific data.
You were the one, in another thread, who put a lot of weight on the appearance of these structures. I think that you can learn a few things by taking the comments in this paper more seriously.
You are freakin' unbelievable. Who the heck are you, of all people, to tell anyone to pay more serious heed to what the scientific papers say? I've just shown you a scientific paper that uses a rigorous methodology to date the Messinian salinity crisis to 5 million years ago, and you dismiss it as if it didn't exist. Why should anyone take lessons on scientific conduct from you, David?
"Of primary importance is the fact that the Bible is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."
It seems, David, that scientists have been exploring these issues since at least 1991. An excellent overview of the primary literature is available here. This appears to be a bibliography for a class whose objective is "To examine critically the theories of origin of the late Miocene evaporites of the Mediterranean Sea, in particular considering the model of a deep desiccated basin." One particular paper cited is:
Schmalz, R.F. 1991. The Mediterranean Salinity Crisis: alternative hypothesis. In: Mediterranean Messinian and other evaporites (Friedman, G.M. ed), Carbonates and Evaporites, 6, 121-126. [Argues that most modern evaporite environments are small, thin and dirty. The Mediterranean is an excellent model for deep evaporite deposition. Isolation from the Atlantic with continued inflow from the Black Sea would evaporate the Mediterranean to dryness in 2000yrs. Deposit would be 42m thick with sedimentation rate of 21mm per annum. Alternatively Atlantic seawater flowed in at a rate just sufficient to replace the volume of water lost by evaporation. Under these conditions the entire basin will be saturated with gypsum after 6000 yrs. After 18000 yrs the basin will be filled to sill depth with halite-saturated brine. Then - no limits to halite accumulation. See also Hsu's papers and the Selli, R. 1985 tectonic model in: Stanley, D.J and Wezel, F.C. Geological Evolution of the Mediterranean Basin.
Wow, MB, you just gave me a flashback! Schmalz is the one that talked me into studying geology in the first place. I won't say how long ago. Anyway, yes, I distinctly remember talking about 'deep water evaporites' long before 1991.
Wow, MB, you just gave me a flashback! Schmalz is the one that talked me into studying geology in the first place. I won't say how long ago. Anyway, yes, I distinctly remember talking about 'deep water evaporites' long before 1991.
Who cares whether Glenn is right on the Flood or not, or whether everything dried out, I dosn't make any difference to teh fact that the earth is 4.6 by and we have an excellent knowledge of its history since then.
The main thing is that DT is talking out a fumerole and his YEC scenario is plain wrong. Also he cant pick and choose what geology he accepts. From his introductory post he accepts conventional geollogy or else he is being two-faced.
Who cares whether Glenn is right on the Flood or not, or whether everything dried out, I dosn't make any difference to teh fact that the earth is 4.6 by and we have an excellent knowledge of its history since then.
I care, and I think many other Christians who think that Genesis is history care. That is a conviction I share with Glenn and although we have radical disagreements, this is one example of something we have in common.
The main thing is that DT is talking out a fumerole and his YEC scenario is plain wrong. Also he cant pick and choose what geology he accepts. From his introductory post he accepts conventional geollogy or else he is being two-faced.
This is rhetoric, kuboes1831. Every geologist has to approach the literature with a critical mind. On the Messinian salinity crisis, the geologists are not of the same mind - even though the dry dessication model is widespread and is popularised by the mass media. I can see valid arguments in the paper I cited - and that is why I posted it for the consideration of others. This is not being two-faced. There are some interesting implications here regarding "how geological science" is done - but I think we have a long way to go before we take the lessons to heart.
Then please explain why you think this is such a horrible problem for my views? So what if there is a 300 foot lake in a 15000 foot hole in the ground? What in that would prevent people from living there? Your logic is well, illogical.
The authors of the paper set out to challenge the scenario advanced by Hsu and adopted by you. Their paper is entitled: "Did the Mediterranean Sea Dry Out During the Miocene?" I think you want to keep the essential dessication model in place. However, a brine lake superimposed on the Hsu model is still challenged by the authors of the paper - they are saying that all the evidences used by the dry dessication model people are suspect and need rethinking. Since your model is based on the dry dessication model, I think it reasonable to ask the questions I did.
Regarding stromatolites:
First off David, just because someone claims something in a paper, doesn't automatically mean that they are right. I believe that they are biogenic but if abiogenic the only difficulty for me would be if they were deposited in 1 hr, 34 min and 16 sec. They don't help your case and they don't hurt mine
I'm arguing for a holistic examination of the data about stromatolites. The authors of the paper gave reasoned arguments as to why structures previously claimed to be stromatolites are more likely to be abiogenic. Let the arguments be considered - but let us not just presume that structures have an organic origin because "they like like modern stromatolites".
You once again cite what you think supports your position ignoring that which doesn't. I would say that not a few geologists also think that there was no macroscopic animals living in the Hadean either but you won't cite them, now will you?
I am not ignoring contrary views, just offering a point that was relevant to the discussion. (As it happens, I also do not think that there were any macroscopic animals living in the Hadean - they were living far from the ancient land surface.)
David, I didn't change my position today. You just merely didn't understand my position outlined in my book. The problem is yours, not mine.
OK. I accept that I do not understand your position nor why it is not in tension with the paper I cited.
I care, and I think many other Christians who think that Genesis is history care. That is a conviction I share with Glenn and although we have radical disagreements, this is one example of something we have in common.
This is rhetoric, kuboes1831. Every geologist has to approach the literature with a critical mind. On the Messinian salinity crisis, the geologists are not of the same mind - even though the dry dessication model is widespread and is popularised by the mass media. I can see valid arguments in the paper I cited - and that is why I posted it for the consideration of others. This is not being two-faced. There are some interesting implications here regarding "how geological science" is done - but I think we have a long way to go before we take the lessons to heart.
Surely by not accepting a world-wide flood Glenn is as much of a compromiser as Davis Young and the rest of us who are aware that the arguments ofr a universal flood are just nonsense and dont hold water.
If you had a critical mind you would not have peddled your perverse reading of geology for 20 years.
Face it, all geology screams that the earth is ancient
The authors of the paper set out to challenge the scenario advanced by Hsu and adopted by you. Their paper is entitled: "Did the Mediterranean Sea Dry Out During the Miocene?" I think you want to keep the essential dessication model in place. However, a brine lake superimposed on the Hsu model is still challenged by the authors of the paper - they are saying that all the evidences used by the dry dessication model people are suspect and need rethinking. Since your model is based on the dry dessication model, I think it reasonable to ask the questions I did.
first off, that is not what the guys are saying. They are not saying that the Mediterranean had the same water level in the Miocene as it has today. One can't possibly explain the Nile canyon with such water levels. I don't know how long you will continue to misrepresent my position concerning the total desciccation of the basin. It simply couldn't have been entirely desciccated and I have never said that. But, like many other things, you want to misrepresent everything to twist it into some object lesson for geological sciences to take to heart.
Regarding stromatolites:
I'm arguing for a holistic examination of the data about stromatolites. The authors of the paper gave reasoned arguments as to why structures previously claimed to be stromatolites are more likely to be abiogenic. Let the arguments be considered - but let us not just presume that structures have an organic origin because "they like like modern stromatolites".
Then show me some present day stromatolites which are inorganic. How are they formed.
I am not ignoring contrary views, just offering a point that was relevant to the discussion. (As it happens, I also do not think that there were any macroscopic animals living in the Hadean - they were living far from the ancient land surface.)
Then are you saying that there were no land animals prior to the flood? How could the land animals be 'living far from the ancient land surface'?
OK. I accept that I do not understand your position nor why it is not in tension with the paper I cited.
I appreciate this, but your constant arguing about things which you are unfamiliar with or wish to twist to your sophistical argumentation, does get tiresome.
Tiggy has earned the honor of being the only person whom I have ever put on the ignore list. Congratulations, Tiggy. I don't see a single thing you write.
Banned forever by the Amer. Scientific Affiliation, a Christian Scientific Group, for the crime of discussing the ethics of ignoring scientific data.
Surely by not accepting a world-wide flood Glenn is as much of a compromiser as Davis Young and the rest of us who are aware that the arguments ofr a universal flood are just nonsense and dont hold water.
Tiggy has earned the honor of being the only person whom I have ever put on the ignore list. Congratulations, Tiggy. I don't see a single thing you write.
Banned forever by the Amer. Scientific Affiliation, a Christian Scientific Group, for the crime of discussing the ethics of ignoring scientific data.
You're saying the flood doesn't hold water?
