Originally posted by Socratism

Sorry, Burgy. Glenn is the offender.

but, you are still wrong Socratism. Saying that certain ideas, like your claim that one can't know anything about the flood and then calling it solipsism, is not a personal attack. The idea being expressed is what is being attacked. You, and your idea, are not the same entity

Yes, the Flood would have been wet in successive stages at different locations as the waters rose, and yes, our ability to predict the outcome of an unpreceded event would be severely limited.

So why do we find layer after layer after layer of desiccation cracks verticallythoughout the geologic column???? I posted lots of pictures of desiccation cracks in every geologic age from around the world at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/droughts.htm

It was a thread on this list, but the search function isn't finding it...
I finally found the thread manually http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14473

Here is one of the pictures. It is from the Triassic. Can you please explain what a dinosaur was doing walking across a dry and mudcracked ground in the middle of the global flood. There are several thousand feet of sediment beneath the dinosaur feet in this locality.? So we have the flood deposit several thousand feet of sediment (much of it burrowed by little animals) and then it all dries out, a dino walks across the dry land and then several thousand more feet of sediment were deposited by the flood and then after the flood, it was all eroded back to the level of the dino tracks. Is that your explanation?

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/descicca...ewMexicoTW.jpg

I posted lots of pictures of desiccation cracks in every geologic age from around the world

The "geologic age" idea is probably flawed. Now if you could show the same thing at one vertical location that would be far more compelling.

Originally posted by Socratism

...Let me be clear. Belief that the universe appeared "naturally" and in such a highly condensed state that all of it would have fit into a volume the size of a dot is insane. What kind of a person would seriously entertain such a far fetched idea and call it "natural"? It is about as unnatural as you can get. It apparently comes about because people have taken a perfectly reasonable approach to most things about science and extrapolated the approach to include ultimate origins like the creation of the universe.

Had I described the two slit experiment to you, say, in 1850, you would have said the same thing about it. Had I described the intertwined particle phenomenon you probably would have called the men in white coats. Both ideas are highly counterintuitive. Far fetched. Etc. But both can be demonstrated in the laboratory.

But again you use the word "belief" in the above. Do I "believe" the "dot" theory? Of course not. I do hold that it is the best natural explanation we have at this time. Perhaps it will be overthrown in the future. No big deal; that's how science works.

Show SCIENTIFICALLY that the concept fails. You may get a Nobel prize.

Similarly, the perfectly reasonable approach in biology of assuming natural processes can be seen to be totally unreasonable if it is applied to the ultimate origin of life itself. There is absolutely no reason or evidence for the belief that life arose "naturally".

Only that the concept fits well the current scientific evolutionary paradigm. That's enough to ACCEPT it (provisionally). I agree that to argue that it is "truth" is scientism at its worst.

Peace

Originally posted by burgy

Had I described the two slit experiment to you, say, in 1850, you would have said the same thing about it. Had I described the intertwined particle phenomenon you probably would have called the men in white coats. Both ideas are highly counterintuitive. Far fetched. Etc. But both can be demonstrated in the laboratory.

Yes, and that is the difference isn't it?

But again you use the word "belief" in the above. Do I "believe" the "dot" theory? Of course not. I do hold that it is the best natural explanation we have at this time.

IMHO the "best" in this case stinks to high heaven.

Perhaps it will be overthrown in the future. No big deal; that's how science works.

Since only "natural" hypotheses are allowed, it is doubtful that a better "natural" hypothesis would show up, but even if it did it would probably be as whacky as the current one.

Show SCIENTIFICALLY that the concept fails. You may get a Nobel prize.

Not likely since it cannot be tested in the laboratory.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

It is common for both cosmologists and evolutionists to come up with whacky theories and then demand that their critics prove them wrong. You seem to be no different.

Only that the concept fits well the current scientific evolutionary paradigm. That's enough to ACCEPT it (provisionally). I agree that to argue that it is "truth" is scientism at its worst.Peace

I obviously don't agree that the concept fits the evidence well. That is why evolutionists either ignore contrary evidence or else rationalize it away through "stories".

Originally posted by Socratism

Yes, and that is the difference isn't it?

A difference which isn't relevant. Despite your opinion to the contrary.

IMHO the "best" in this case stinks to high heaven.

I think that's a given.

Since only "natural" hypotheses are allowed, it is doubtful that a better "natural" hypothesis would show up, but even if it did it would probably be as whacky as the current one.

Perhaps whackier! Oh, those whacky evolutionists.

Not likely since it cannot be tested in the laboratory.

Suuure it can.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Evidenec Soc. Scientists use evidence, not proofs.

It is common for both cosmologists and evolutionists to come up with whacky theories and then demand that their critics prove them wrong. You seem to be no different.

As opposed to creationsists, who doggedly go only where the evidence leads, which just happens to be right where they already are. Imagine the odds.

I obviously don't agree that the concept fits the evidence well. That is why evolutionists either ignore the evidence or else rationalize it away through "stories".

Darn straight! Why YE creationists would never rationalize the evidence to fit a pre-concieved position or ignore it.

Oh wait ....

Originally posted by Socratism

I obviously don't agree that the concept fits the evidence well. That is why evolutionists either ignore contrary evidence or else rationalize it away through "stories".

Ignore what contrary evidence? I can no longer count how many times in this forum we have asked YECs for sound evidence in favor of their young-earth model only to be greeted by the chirping of crickets.

If you want to accuse evolutionary scientists of being incompetent, you better darn well be able to produce the evidence to back it up.

Originally posted by Monkey Boy

Ignore what contrary evidence? I can no longer count how many times in this forum we have asked YECs for sound evidence in favor of their young-earth model only to be greeted by the chirping of crickets.

If you want to accuse evolutionary scientists of being incompetent, you better darn well be able to produce the evidence to back it up.

I would say that they are very competent at what they do.

But they also appear to be so in love with the whole idea that they are blind to its imperfections.

Just to clarify the issue for Soc and others, Scientific Method does NOT use the word "proof" or "prove". Instead one says that the data SUPPORT or does not SUPPORT the hypothesis. "Proof" is a concept from deductive reasoning, which does not apply properly to the scientific (inductive) method.

E.g., the Big Bang hypothesis is SUPPORTED by various data, including:

1) An expanding universe, witnessed by OBSERVABLE red shift.

2) The presence (OBSERVABLE) of cosmic background radiation in the microwave frequency band (equivalent to blackbody radiation at about 3 Kelvins)

3) Laboratory reconstructions of conditions near the time of the hypothesized Big Bang showing the decoupling of fundamental forces and production of characteristic particles.

Can you think of any others?

Yes, scientists are really silly to try to find "natural" explanations of origins. But, here is the important philosophical point -- science gives no input or insight into ULTIMATE origins, nor does it claim to. It can give no answer or posit no hypothesis regarding causality, it can just look for answers in nature -- which it has done very well.

Did anyone ever tell you that your concern about the words "proof" and "support" is totally boring?

They should have.

BTW, have you ever heard the reasons why the Big Bang is not supported?

You should have.

So what does the evidence of an expanding universe and cosmic background radiation support? First, you have evidence, then you have an hypothesis -- that's the way science works. Sorry, if it's boring, I know many of my students think so as well. Maybe a "straightforward" or "plain" reading of Genesis 1-6 is more interesting, eh? Trouble is, it doesn't explain the data.

Originally posted by Socratism

The "geologic age" idea is probably flawed. Now if you could show the same thing at one vertical location that would be far more compelling.

Ok, I will do it. This is a well from the Williston Basin. It has rocks from all ages there in vertical succession. There are 8 layers of desiccation cracks vertically above one another. (you should be careful what you ask for)

Here is the depths from a well in Montana in the deepest part of the basin. I have interspersed the comments from my web page and other sources. My web page is http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geo.htm The footage is the depth the formation is found in the W. H. Hunt Larsen #1 well in Montana:

Tertiary Ft. Union Fm ..........................100 feet
Cretaceous Greenhorn Fm .......................4910 feet
Cretaceous Mowry Fm........................... 5370 feet
Cretaceous Inyan Kara Fm.......................5790 feet
Jurassic Rierdon Fm............................6690 feet
Triassic Spearfish Fm..........................7325 feet
"A continental mode of deposition is suggested by the red color of the sediments. This color suggests oxidation, possibly resulting from periodic wetting and drying (Barchyn, 1982, 1984). This is further substantiated by desiccation <cracks in the shaly interbeds. The anhydritic nature of the sediments also suggests periodic emergence of the depositional surface."Richard D. Le Fever, Julie A. Le Fever, "Newburg and South Westhope Fields--U.S.A. Williston Basin, North Dakota" in TR: Stratigraphic Traps II, 1991, AAPG, p. 177



Permian Opeche Fm..............................7740 feet
"The products of the desiccation stage are desiccation <cracks> in halite and red sediment, microcrystalline salt crust, intergranular and pipe-filling halite cement, and displacive halite and anhydrite crystals. "Kathleen Counter Benison (1), Robert H. Goldstein, "Sedimentology of Ancient Saline Pans: An Example from the Permian Opeche> Shale, Williston Basin, North Dakota, U.S.A." Journal of Sedimentary Research, Section A: Sedimentary Petrology and Processes Vol. 70 (2000), No. 1. (January), Pages 159-169
, p. 166

Pennsylvanian Amsden Fm........................7990 feet
Pennsylvanian Tyler Fm.........................8245 feet
Mississippian Otter Fm.........................8440 feet
Mississippian Kibbey Lm........................8780 feet
Mississippian Charles Fm.......................8945 feet
Mississippian Mission Canyon Fm................9775 feet
Mississippian Lodgepole Fm....................10255 feet
Devonian Bakken Fm............................11085 feet
Devonian Birdbear Fm..........................11340 feet
"Birdbear formation with desiccation, caliche development (caliche is widespread in west Texas- a dry area) and burrows. (Ehrets and Kissling, 1983, p. 1336; Halabura, 1983, p. 121) " my web page

and

"Devonian events include early cementation of desiccation structures and intergranular spaces, localized vuggy and moldic porosity development, and dolomitization and formation of intercrystalline porosity." Gerald C. Blount, "Stratigraphy, Depositional Environments, and Diagenesis Related to Porosity Development and Destruction in Jefferson Formation, Northwestern Montana: ABSTRACT" AAPG, Aug.1986, p. 1032

Devonian Duperow Fm...........................11422 feet
Devonian Souris River Fm......................11832 feet
Devonian Dawson Bay Fm........................12089 feet
"This study shows that the mudstone was deposited in environments that ranged from saline- and dry-mudflat to distal alluvial-eolian plain, and that the dolostone formed in a Coorong-like environment. New evidence shows that the lower Burr Member was deposited in an oxygen-restricted environment. Data indicate that the environment in central Saskatchewan was more oxygen- restricted. From base to top, the depositional environment of the Neely Member changed from relatively deep, offshore settings, through higher energy, shallower water conditions represented by domical stromatoporoids, to intertidal and supratidal conditions. The Hubbard Evaporite Member was deposited in salt pan to saline mudflat environment, and the overlying First Red Bed formed in environments that ranged from saline mudflat, dry mudflat to distal floodplain. " C. Gu, Ph.D. thesis, 1998; DISS. ABSTR. INT., SECT. B v.59, no.6, p.2633-B, Dec. 1998.

Devonian Prairie Fm...........................12180 feet
Devonian Winnipegosis Grp.....................12310 feet
"The lower Devonian is the Winnepegosis formation and it consists of a bioclastic (meaning made up of the shells of dead carbonate producing animals) limestone, and the upper part is interbedded carbonate with anhydrite. Mud cracks are also found as are burrows.(Perrin, 1983, p. 54, 57.) There is no sand, no shale so it is hard to see how this could be the flood deposits. Anhydrite is an evaporitic mineral and not compatible with a global flood." My web page

Silurian Interlaken Fm.........................12539 feet
"This formation consists of carbonates, anhydrite, salt, with minor amounts of sand. Layers throughout this deposit are also burrows and mudcracks from drying out of the layers (Lobue, 1983, p. 36,37). There are also intact corals of a totally different type than are alive today. The Paleozoic corals are belong to one of three groups - only one of which is found in Mesozoic rocks; the other two became extinct at the end of the Paleozoic. The four-sided corals are only found in the Paleozoic. Modern corals of the 6-sided or 8-sided kind are not found until the Triassic. " my web page

Ordovician Stonewall Fm.......................13250 feet
Ordovician Red River Dolomite.................13630 feet
"Dense dolomites are present well down in the Red River, and in the outcrop area immediately to the north abundant mud cracks (desiccation cracks?) and ripple marks in the Red River dolomites were reported by Byers (1957, p. 27) and Byers and Dahlstrom (1954, p. 70). " J. W. Porter, J. G. C. M. Fuller, "Lower Paleozoic Rocks of Northern Williston Basin and Adjacent Areas" AAPG Bulletin, Jan. 1959, p. 154

Ordovician Winnipeg Grp.......................14210 feet
Ordovician Black Island Fm....................14355 feet
Cambrian Deadwood Fm..........................14445 feet
Precambrian...................................14945 feet


So, Socratism, can you explain this? At least 8 levels of desiccation cracks in the Williston basin all vertically in one place. How does this happen in the flood?


Here are more multiple level, vertically superposed mud crack horizons:

frenchman flat sections
mudcracks at bottom
then pebbly sandstone
then burrows in shale then sandstone (pebbly)
then dark grey sandstone (crossbedded)
then redbrown breccias and conglomerate
then burrows
then stromatolites
then red mudstone with mudcracks
then plant remains at top
Martin H. Link and Robert H. Osborne "Lacustrine facies in the
Pliocene Ridge Basin Groups: Ridge Basin, California" in Modern
and Ancient Lake Sediments ed. by Albert Matter and Maurice E.
Tucker London: Blackwell Scientific Publications 1978 p. 178.


I can find lots and lots more of these examples.

Originally posted by Socratism

The "geologic age" idea is probably flawed.

Another compelling argument: "...everybody in a field that I know nothing about is wrong." Is this really the best you can do, S? Do you have any solid evidence that the whole geological column is wrong?

Now if you could show the same thing at one vertical location that would be far more compelling.

I seriously doubt that it would make a bit of difference to you. Correlations have been painstakingly worked out for centuries now, but you can simply dismiss the whole concept with a handwave.

Originally posted by aniso

I seriously doubt that it would make a bit of difference to you. Correlations have been painstakingly worked out for centuries now, but you can simply dismiss the whole concept with a handwave.

I doubt it will make any difference to Socratism either, but I did give him what he asked for. We will now see if he finds the above data compelling, and begins to change his mind (which is the honorable approach) or if he refuses to change his mind in spite of getting what he asked for.

Everyone makes mistakes. I made a mistake of spending 20 years plus of my adult life as a young-earth creationist. The data simply doesn't support that viewpoint. I had to acknowledge that I was wrong, and it was one of the hardest things I ever did.

Originally posted by Socratism

I would say that they are very competent at what they do.

But they also appear to be so in love with the whole idea that they are blind to its imperfections.

So they're competent at the mechanics of science but too stupid to connect all the dots. Is that what you mean?

Originally posted by Socratism

BTW, have you ever heard the reasons why the Big Bang is not supported?

Feel free to outline them in a new thread.

Originally posted by Kibagami Jubei

Feel free to outline them in a new thread.

Be my guest. First go to the Flandern website I posted here on another thread.

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmolog...BBproblems.asp

Glenn,

The "mud cracks" you mention occurring in a bore hole sound interesting. Do you have any photos of them?

Have you considered alternative explanations that would not involve the layer being on the surface for an extended period?