Calm, global like flooding?
Dana Tweedy
Maryland.
Perhaps our resident Creationist pundit could explain why he thinks that
this geologic feature is considered to be the result of "Calm global like
flooding" as he claims that mainstream geology texts teach.
http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/features/sidel.html
Then perhaps he could explain how a single, short term global flood could
produce such a geologic feature.
DJT
Bobby D. Bryant
I suspect it was produced by dynamite.
BTW, can I nominate the 'like' in "global like" for the t.o. weasel-word
of of the year?
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
T Pagano
<redd...@Nospam.com> wrote:
>The website below relates to the Sideling Hill Road Cut, in western
>Maryland.
>
>Perhaps our resident Creationist pundit could explain why he thinks that
>this geologic feature is considered to be the result of "Calm global like
>flooding" as he claims that mainstream geology texts teach.
>
>http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/features/sidel.html
Pagano replies:
"Calm, global-like flooding over eons" is an historical hypothesis of
modern secular geologists so the problem offered by Tweedy is his
problem not mine. Some extremely brief background is necessary since
Tweedy is apparently more ignorant of his own framework than I am.
The calm global-like flooding over eons is a historical claim
hypothesized by modern secularists not I. The secular "principle of
superposition" is their primary guide when creating their historical
reconstructions of earth history and it assumes (not scientifically
tests the assertion) that stratigraphic layers were essentially
horizontal when they were deposited.
Modern secular geologists conjoin this principle of superposition
consistent with their historical theory of calm global-like flooding
over eons to conclude that stratigraphic layers can be correlated on a
global basis, provide a relative dating for those layers (the "higher"
the layer the "younger" the period in history) , and to also allow the
dating of fossils contained within them.
So again the problem offered by Tweedy is a problem for his framework
not me. Furthermore these kind of anomolous problems for the secular
uniformitarian framework are the rule not the exception. Tweedy's
brother secular geologists solve these numerous anomolies (like
Tweedy's "cut") by inserting a short term catastrophic event where
ever necessary. But don't creationists propose a global, short term
catastrophic event in prehistory?
> Then perhaps he could explain how a single, short term global flood could
>produce such a geologic feature.
>
Pagano replies:
The Noahic Flood is world wide, short term, catastrophic event. Why
would an event of such power be inconsistent with a "cut?"
Forrest claims to be the expert; perhaps you should seek his "expert"
opinion.
Regards,
T Pagano
John Vreeland
I think Tweedy's point was that this was clearly not the result of a
catastrophic event and that it fit the "secular geologist" framework
very well, but not the "sectarian geologist" catastrophic framework.
>
>> Then perhaps he could explain how a single, short term global flood could
>>produce such a geologic feature.
>>
So, no, he can't explain how a biblical flood could produce such a
feature, either. Can anyone?
>
> Pagano replies:
>The Noahic Flood is world wide, short term, catastrophic event. Why
>would an event of such power be inconsistent with a "cut?"
>
>Forrest claims to be the expert; perhaps you should seek his "expert"
>opinion.
>
>Regards,
>T Pagano
Jack V (Vreejack)
"Will future ages believe that such stupid bigotry ever existed!"--_Ivanhoe_
John Harshman
T Pagano wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 22:28:23 +0000 (UTC), "Dana Tweedy"
> <redd...@Nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The website below relates to the Sideling Hill Road Cut, in western
>>Maryland.
>>
>>Perhaps our resident Creationist pundit could explain why he thinks that
>>this geologic feature is considered to be the result of "Calm global like
>>flooding" as he claims that mainstream geology texts teach.
>>
>>http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/features/sidel.html
>>
>
>
> Pagano replies:
> "Calm, global-like flooding over eons" is an historical hypothesis of
> modern secular geologists so the problem offered by Tweedy is his
> problem not mine. Some extremely brief background is necessary since
> Tweedy is apparently more ignorant of his own framework than I am.
No, he's more ignorant of your twisted use of terms than you are. You
apparently are using "calm, global-like flooding over eons" to refer to
eustatic sea level changes, if indeed you mean anything by it. But most
sedimentation has nothing directly to do with eustatic changes, although
it may be driven by such changes.
> The calm global-like flooding over eons is a historical claim
> hypothesized by modern secularists not I.
Whoops, not secularists. To the extent that it is a claim, it's a claim
of scientists. Or must a scientist also be a secularist? Depends on your
personal definition of the terms, I suppose.
> The secular "principle of
> superposition" is their primary guide when creating their historical
> reconstructions of earth history and it assumes (not scientifically
> tests the assertion) that stratigraphic layers were essentially
> horizontal when they were deposited.
No, that's the law of original horizontality. Different. You do
understand, don't you, that both those laws were first expressed by
Nicolaus Steno, who was a Catholic bishop in his spare time? So it's
especially unclear what you mean by "secularist" in this context.
> Modern secular geologists conjoin this principle of superposition
> consistent with their historical theory of calm global-like flooding
> over eons to conclude that stratigraphic layers can be correlated on a
> global basis, provide a relative dating for those layers (the "higher"
> the layer the "younger" the period in history) , and to also allow the
> dating of fossils contained within them.
All nonsense. Correlation has nothing to do with "calm global-like
flooding" and nothing to do with worldwide continuity of deposits. It's
weird that in a previous post you tried to use sequence stratigraphy to
argue for a point. If you knew anything about sequence stratigraphy you
would know that it's entirely incompatible with your strawman theory of
global correlation. Correlation by lithology and continuity is possible
over a limited range, though even there we have to watch out for
time-transgressive facies. Index fossils are good over a much wider
range. But for worldwide correlation, it's radiometric dating (and, for
Cretaceous-Recent, magnetic reversals).
> So again the problem offered by Tweedy is a problem for his framework
> not me.
No, for your strawman caricature of his framework.
> Furthermore these kind of anomolous problems for the secular
> uniformitarian framework are the rule not the exception. Tweedy's
> brother secular geologists solve these numerous anomolies (like
> Tweedy's "cut") by inserting a short term catastrophic event where
> ever necessary. But don't creationists propose a global, short term
> catastrophic event in prehistory?
You confuse a series of episodes (by no means catastrophic, unless you
have a much slower definition of catastrophes than other people) with a
single, definitely catastrophic event. Way, way different. How does your
global flood account for synclines?
>> Then perhaps he could explain how a single, short term global flood could
>>produce such a geologic feature.
>
> Pagano replies:
> The Noahic Flood is world wide, short term, catastrophic event. Why
> would an event of such power be inconsistent with a "cut?"
This really shows your ignorance like nothing else. The cut was manmade,
quite recently, for the purpose of putting a road through the mountains.
It's the nature of the rocks exposed by the cut that he's asking you
about. Talk about your clueless, chez watt-worthy material!
> Forrest claims to be the expert; perhaps you should seek his "expert"
> opinion.
Not needed. None of this is a mystery to standard geology. But could you
explain it in flood-geology terms? Apparently not, since you even appeal
to flood geology to explain road cuts!
Klaus Hellnick
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 22:28:23 +0000 (UTC), "Dana Tweedy"
> <redd...@Nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The website below relates to the Sideling Hill Road Cut, in western
>>Maryland.
>>
>>Perhaps our resident Creationist pundit could explain why he thinks that
>>this geologic feature is considered to be the result of "Calm global like
>>flooding" as he claims that mainstream geology texts teach.
>>
>>http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/features/sidel.html
>
>
>
> Pagano replies:
> "Calm, global-like flooding over eons" is an historical hypothesis of
> modern secular geologists so the problem offered by Tweedy is his
> problem not mine. Some extremely brief background is necessary since
> Tweedy is apparently more ignorant of his own framework than I am.
>
> The calm global-like flooding over eons is a historical claim
> hypothesized by modern secularists not I.
This is an assertion YOU always make, and never back up, like most of
what you claim.
> The secular "principle of
> superposition" is their primary guide when creating their historical
> reconstructions of earth history and it assumes (not scientifically
> tests the assertion) that stratigraphic layers were essentially
> horizontal when they were deposited.
Um, why wouldn't they be deposited horizonatally, as they are in the
present?
>
> Modern secular geologists conjoin this principle of superposition
> consistent with their historical theory of calm global-like flooding
There is that stupid Pagano phrase again. You really ought to define it.
> over eons to conclude that stratigraphic layers can be correlated on a
> global basis, provide a relative dating for those layers (the "higher"
> the layer the "younger" the period in history) , and to also allow the
> dating of fossils contained within them.
>
> So again the problem offered by Tweedy is a problem for his framework
> not me.
Wrong. You are the one who keeps babbling about "calm global-like
flooding", no one else. Put up or shut up.
> Furthermore these kind of anomolous problems for the secular
> uniformitarian framework are the rule not the exception. Tweedy's
> brother secular geologists solve these numerous anomolies (like
> Tweedy's "cut") by inserting a short term catastrophic event where
> ever necessary. But don't creationists propose a global, short term
> catastrophic event in prehistory?
Actually, no. Most claim a major world wide catastrophe in HISTORICAL
times, that is not backed up by physical evidence of written records
from the time in question.
>
>
>
>
>> Then perhaps he could explain how a single, short term global flood could
>>produce such a geologic feature.
>>
>
>
>
> Pagano replies:
> The Noahic Flood is world wide, short term, catastrophic event. Why
> would an event of such power be inconsistent with a "cut?"
Beacause such an event would not come anywhere close to producing normal
strata, overthrusts, or inverted strata as seen in the real world.
>
> Forrest claims to be the expert; perhaps you should seek his "expert"
> opinion.
If you agree you are not an expert, then why do you keep posting such
nonsense rather than using the opinions of experts?
Klaus
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
Bill Rogers
I kinda, like, like the like in global like flooding. My teenage
daughter, like, likes it, too.
And what do you mean "weasel-word?" Global like flooding only differs
from a global flood in quantity, not quality. It's all wet.
Qualitatively indistinguishable.
Richard Forrest
I made no claims whatsoever to be an expert, merely indicated that I
had been 'studying geology for 30 years, have spent an inordinate
amount of time grubbing about in quarries, road cuttings, coastal
exposures and holes in the ground collecting fossils and recording
stratigraphic sequences".
If you think that makes me an expert, fine.
So why don't you explain to me what the 'stratigraphic layer problem'
is?
And the 'index fossil problem'?
Please give me some examples of overthrusts, and explain what you mean
by their being 'orderly on a world-wide basis'.
Tell me what are the flaws in the convention model explaining thrust
fault formation.
Explain what you mean by an "uniformitarian thrust".
Give some analysis of my responses to creationists
athttp://www.plesiosaur.com/creationism/50reasons/50reasons-page-005.htm
Once again you have nothing to support your position other than
personal conviction and unfounded assertions.
If you think I'm wrong, please provide
1) a clear formulation of your theory of, for example, the global
flood
2) argument and
3) evidence
to support that theories
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
RF
Richard Forrest
As a matter of idle curiosity, have you ever read any book on geology?
RF
Tracy Hamilton
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.09.01....@mail.utexas.edu...
I fancy "truth like" as my favorite weasel word. Guess who uses it?
Tracy P. Hamilton
Dana Tweedy
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.09.01....@mail.utexas.edu...
>
> > The website below relates to the Sideling Hill Road Cut, in western
> > Maryland.
> >
> > Perhaps our resident Creationist pundit could explain why he thinks that
> > this geologic feature is considered to be the result of "Calm global
> > like flooding" as he claims that mainstream geology texts teach.
> >
> > http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/features/sidel.html
> >
> > Then perhaps he could explain how a single, short term global flood
> > could produce such a geologic feature.
>
> I suspect it was produced by dynamite.
Thanks Bobby, but I was referring to the structure of the mountain, not the
origin of the roadcut.
>
> BTW, can I nominate the 'like' in "global like" for the t.o. weasel-word
> of of the year?
Sure, go for it.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> <redd...@Nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >The website below relates to the Sideling Hill Road Cut, in western
> >Maryland.
> >
> >Perhaps our resident Creationist pundit could explain why he thinks that
> >this geologic feature is considered to be the result of "Calm global
like
> >flooding" as he claims that mainstream geology texts teach.
> >
> >http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/features/sidel.html
>
>
> Pagano replies:
> "Calm, global-like flooding over eons" is an historical hypothesis of
> modern secular geologists so the problem offered by Tweedy is his
> problem not mine. Some extremely brief background is necessary since
> Tweedy is apparently more ignorant of his own framework than I am.
This is exactly the response I expected from Pagano, and the one that
displays his own ignorance of what geologists really say. Pagano
demostrates quite clearly he does not know what "modern secular geologists"
hypothesize about the formation of geological features.
The point I was making is that modern "secular" geology does not claim
that geological features such as Sideling Hill were the result of "calm
global like flooding". If one follows the link given on the page linked
above: http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/brochures/sideling.html you can see the
geological explanation for the pattern of rock layers uncovered in the
roadcut. It's a three stage process, deposition , mountain building, and
differental erosion of the relatively harder rock layers. Nowhere does
"calm, global like flooding" appear as an explanation. .
>
> The calm global-like flooding over eons is a historical claim
> hypothesized by modern secularists not I.
As clearly displayed above, that is simply not true. Geologists do not
claim that "calm global-like flooding" explains the features we see. The
real explanations are much more complex, and are based on a knowlege of such
forces as tectonic movement, erosion, vulcanism, and differential
deposition. Modern geologists are quite aware that geologic catastrophies
occur, and leave physical traces in the structure of the rocks.
> The secular "principle of
> superposition" is their primary guide when creating their historical
> reconstructions of earth history and it assumes (not scientifically
> tests the assertion) that stratigraphic layers were essentially
> horizontal when they were deposited.
Can Tony explain how stratagraphic layers could possibly be laid down other
than horizontally? I challenge Tony to perform a quick experiment. Take
a handful of loose silt, or sand, and place it on an inclined plane. How
much stays on the incline?
>
> Modern secular geologists conjoin this principle of superposition
> consistent with their historical theory of calm global-like flooding
> over eons to conclude that stratigraphic layers can be correlated on a
> global basis, provide a relative dating for those layers (the "higher"
> the layer the "younger" the period in history) , and to also allow the
> dating of fossils contained within them.
A system worked out long before the concept of 'deep time' in the geologic
column was advanced. Fossils are of course dated both by relative and
objective methods.
>
> So again the problem offered by Tweedy is a problem for his framework
> not me.
So, again, Pagano is wrong. Pagano makes the claim that modern geologists
rely on "calm, global like flooding", when that is clearly not the case.
> Furthermore these kind of anomolous problems for the secular
> uniformitarian framework are the rule not the exception.
What "anomoly" does Tony think I'm talking about? The Sideling Hill
Roadcut does not expose an anonomly for modern geology.
> Tweedy's
> brother secular geologists solve these numerous anomolies (like
> Tweedy's "cut") by inserting a short term catastrophic event where
> ever necessary.
Wrong again, Tony. The roadcut itself is manmade. The structure I'm
talking about is the structure of the mountain.
> But don't creationists propose a global, short term
> catastrophic event in prehistory?
Of course, but no such catastrophe can explain the structure of Sideling
Hill. Look again, how did a single short term flood leave that pattern?
>
>
>
> > Then perhaps he could explain how a single, short term global flood
could
> >produce such a geologic feature.
> >
>
>
> Pagano replies:
> The Noahic Flood is world wide, short term, catastrophic event. Why
> would an event of such power be inconsistent with a "cut?"
Again, Tony, the cut is not the feature I'm talking about. It's manmade,
and the history of it is quite well known. What I'm talking about is the
structure of the mountain itself. Take a look. Why would a flood leave the
bottom of a syncline at the top of a mountain? Modern geology explains
the structure of the mountain quite well. A "Noachic flood" could not have
left the pattern seen on the mountain side in the roadcut. If all layers
were laid down at the same time, during a catastrophic flood, the kind of
differential erosion seen in the Allegheny Mountain range would not have
occured. Surely even you can see that.
>
> Forrest claims to be the expert; perhaps you should seek his "expert"
> opinion.
I'm not asking "Forrest", I'm asking Tony Pagano to explain how a single,
catastrophic flood could explain the structure of the mountain?
DJT
John Harshman
T Pagano wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 22:28:23 +0000 (UTC), "Dana Tweedy"
> <redd...@Nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The website below relates to the Sideling Hill Road Cut, in western
>>Maryland.
>>
>>Perhaps our resident Creationist pundit could explain why he thinks that
>>this geologic feature is considered to be the result of "Calm global like
>>flooding" as he claims that mainstream geology texts teach.
>>
>>http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/features/sidel.html
[snip]
> So again the problem offered by Tweedy is a problem for his framework
> not me. Furthermore these kind of anomolous problems for the secular
> uniformitarian framework are the rule not the exception. Tweedy's
> brother secular geologists solve these numerous anomolies (like
> Tweedy's "cut") by inserting a short term catastrophic event where
> ever necessary. But don't creationists propose a global, short term
> catastrophic event in prehistory?
[snip]
> The Noahic Flood is world wide, short term, catastrophic event. Why
> would an event of such power be inconsistent with a "cut?"
[snip]
Nobody else seems to have picked up on this. But seems apparent to me
that Pagano thinks the Tweedy challenge has to do with existence of the
road cut itself, not the geology of the exposed strata. Am I
misinterpreting?
Thomas H. Faller
The Flood produced major cuts in most of the Eastern and Western
mountain ranges and distributed oil-drenched sediments in linear
fashion through them. Anyone who has watched the calm, local
pouring of asphalt knows the difference between an interstate highway
and a tanker oil spill is just a difference in degree, location, viscosity,
chemistry, spread and thickness. No problem for Flood geology at all.
Tom Faller
Bobby D. Bryant
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.09.01....@mail.utexas.edu...
>> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 22:28:23 +0000, Dana Tweedy wrote:
>>
>> > Then perhaps he could explain how a single, short term global flood
>> > could produce such a geologic feature.
>>
>> I suspect it was produced by dynamite.
>
> Thanks Bobby, but I was referring to the structure of the mountain, not
> the origin of the roadcut.
Pagano kind of trumped my joke by making the same mistake in earnest.
Bobby D. Bryant
> If you think I'm wrong, please provide 1) a clear formulation of your
> theory of, for example, the global flood
I'm particulary interested to hear how "calm" a flood that covered Mt.
Everest in 40 days was.
Bobby D. Bryant
He may just think "cut" is the name of the exposed feature. It's not like
he actually knows anything about geology.
Chris Thompson
Nah. It's what he does before he runs.
--
Chris
aa#2186
Black helicopter mind-control-ray door-gunner
=====
"We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and
then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so
as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry
on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that
sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually
on a battlefield." --George Orwell, 1946, "Under Your Nose"
Harlequin
> On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:12:21 +0000, John Harshman wrote:
He is been arguing for his nutty YEC view for years. How the
&@!&^~ could not know what a road cut is? If this is true than
he is more willfully ignorant than most of us have given him
credit for (and most of us were giving a _lot_ of credit already).
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"
Electoral Vote Predictor 2004: Kerry 252 / Bush 270
http://www.electoral-vote.com
Rich Mathers
John Harshman wrote:
No. It is clear Tony is thoroughly confused. He's confused about
science, and confused about how one engages in the practice of science,
and confused about how to interpret empirical phenomena, and this thread
reveals him so confused as to believe Tweedy's "cut" is a topic to be
understood as a scientific and empirical issue that is magically related
to the Noahic flood.
What is really delightful in reading this thread is how bombastic and
assertive he is about the unexplanied nature of this "cut" and how it's
consistent with the Creationist explanation when the real scientific
interest is the concave formation it exposes. (This "cut" is a made
feature on I88 [with a rest stop and a very informative museum] taking
about four years to accomplish.) All of Tony's bloviating about the
failure of secular geology should be preserved for a creationist geology
text. It is just too rich to let it be lost in cyber space.
I'm sure Tony will come back and bloviate some more on how he is
constantly being misinterpreted.
John Harshman
Rich Mathers wrote:
Hey, let's not be to hard on him. The road cut is conclusive proof of
intelligent design in geology. He's just confused about the identity of
the designer.
John Wilkins
Karl Popper: "Verisimilitude"...
--
John S. Wilkins jo...@wilkins.id.au
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
Harlequin
news:QKFZc.2238$Wv5....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
[snip]
>> The secular "principle of
>> superposition" is their primary guide when creating their historical
>> reconstructions of earth history and it assumes (not scientifically
>> tests the assertion) that stratigraphic layers were essentially
>> horizontal when they were deposited.
>
> Can Tony explain how stratagraphic layers could possibly be laid down
> other than horizontally? I challenge Tony to perform a quick
> experiment. Take a handful of loose silt, or sand, and place it on an
> inclined plane. How much stays on the incline?
[snip]
Which of course brings up things like angular unconformities,
nonconformities, disconformities, and local unconformities
which are subjects that YECs run from like the plague.
Can Tony explain the following:
http://www.env.duke.edu/eos/geo41/st017.gif
I can. The Vishnu Schist was eroded. Then strata
was deposited on it. Deposition stopped and
that strata was eroded plus somewhere along the way
the land was tilted. Afterwords more strata was
laid. Then it was eroded. Then more strata was
laid. Then it was subjected to erosion that almost
eroded it all away and indeed in many places that
strata was eroded all away and some strata from the
previous cycle was eroded. Then more strata was
laid. And then it was eroded. Then more strata
was laid. We are up to the Redwall Limestone.
I have not add the steps needed to explain the
disconformities above the Redwall Limestone since
Tony will probably dispute them (with grounds
of course). But the all the unconformities below
it depicted on the graphic are indisputable. The
events which I spelled out are also indisputable
(except that they are simplified).
It is actually quite amazing that the Archive still
has nothing on unconformities in spite that it
is the one of the simpliest to understand
demonstration that the Earth is very old.
Dana Tweedy
"Rich Mathers" <R-Ma...@wiu.edu> wrote in message
news:ch82id$78p$1...@mail1.wiu.edu...
snipping
> What is really delightful in reading this thread is how bombastic and
> assertive he is about the unexplanied nature of this "cut" and how it's
> consistent with the Creationist explanation when the real scientific
> interest is the concave formation it exposes. (This "cut" is a made
> feature on I88 [with a rest stop and a very informative museum] taking
> about four years to accomplish.)
Nit picky point, it's I-68, not 88.
DJT
>
>
Boikat
> <redd...@Nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >The website below relates to the Sideling Hill Road Cut, in western
> >Maryland.
> >
> >Perhaps our resident Creationist pundit could explain why he thinks that
> >this geologic feature is considered to be the result of "Calm global
like
> >flooding" as he claims that mainstream geology texts teach.
> >
> >http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/features/sidel.html
>
>
> Pagano replies:
> "Calm, global-like flooding over eons" is an historical hypothesis of
> modern secular geologists so the problem offered by Tweedy is his
> problem not mine. Some extremely brief background is necessary since
> Tweedy is apparently more ignorant of his own framework than I am.
>
> The calm global-like flooding over eons is a historical claim
<snip>
No, it isn't. If it is, please present the reference to support your claim.
If you cannot, than, as they say "down south", you don't have a hair on your
ass.
Boikat
Boikat
"Thomas H. Faller" <fal...@sgi.com> wrote in message
news:41374A6E...@sgi.com...
Even more important, the flood generated cuts happened to occure exactly
where we needed them for highways and roads. Now, the question is, in the
case of the linear distribution of the oil and tar laden sediments, how does
one distinguish between the man-made highways and roads and the flood
generated tar-flows? I submit that the smallish back-woods deposits that
lack yellow or white stripes are purely natural, flood related, tar-flows.
It is possible, however, that tar-flow deposits with yellow and white
stripes are also of flood origin, however, human road crews added the
stripes later.
Boikat
--
<42><
>
> Tom Faller
>
>
Richard Forrest
As I understand it (and I invite Pagano to correct me if I err) 'calm'
refers to his understanding of how geological deposts are formed under
the conventional model. He somehow equates 'uniformatism' with the
idea that all deposits are laid down at a constant rate under uniform
conditions. I presume this is what he means by 'calm, global-like
flooding'. Somehow the fact that we have been identifying volcanic
events, faulting, changes in depositional environment, braided river
deposits, lacustrine deposits, estuarine deposits, paleosols, blown
sand deposits, near-shore deposits, lagoonal deposits, storm deposits,
wave deposits, evaporites, and all the other paraphenalia of modern
geologial taxonomy seem to have passed him by.
I'd suggest that he educates himself in basic geology, but as his
belief system seems to be based on the virtues of profound ignorance,
perhaps he would consider that to be an attack on his religion.
RF
Bill Rogers
Are you kidding? He's way too busy not reading Popper, Hume, and
Aristotle to get round to geology.
>
> RF
Rich Mathers
John Harshman wrote:
Damn, I should'uh thought of that. But shouldn't it be "designers?"
Rich Mathers
Dana Tweedy wrote:
You're right of course! Thanks for the correction. What's bad is that
I often use I88 to go into Chicago. Age and all that is my excuse.
>
>
>>
>
Von Smith
<snip>
> What is really delightful in reading this thread is how bombastic and
> assertive he is about the unexplanied nature of this "cut" and how it's
> consistent with the Creationist explanation when the real scientific
> interest is the concave formation it exposes. (This "cut" is a made
> feature on I88 [with a rest stop and a very informative museum] taking
> about four years to accomplish.)
There you have it: evidence of calm, roadal-like cutting.
Von Smith
Fortuna nimis dat multis, satis nulli.
John Harshman
T Pagano wrote:
[snip mucho silliness]
Hmmm. Pagano seems to have lost interest in this thread. Does anyone
have a theory about why that might be? Anyone?
Boikat
"John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:4139ED9...@pacbell.net...
Because nobody bought into his mindnumbingly ignorant blathercrap?
Boikat
--
<42><
>
Harlequin
Because he had his you know what kicked good and hard?
David Sienkiewicz
< snip >
I have to tell you, Tony, I've rarely as entertained as I have these
past few weeks, watching you get clobbered on a fairly regular basis
after you've posted your normal, redundant speeches.
I believe that Steven J has become your nemesis, and you all but
completely ignore him. Ah, it reminds me of the heady days when you
ran from me; and I don't have NEAR the talent or knowledge that Steven
does.
So, after watching this - and taking part, on occasion, only to watch
you run from ME, too - I have come to a condundrum.
Tony, you're either the most brazenly successful Loki troll in the
history of talk.origins - you do a magnificent job of showing how
stupid, stubborn and pig-headed, if not outright dishonest,
creationists can be - or you really ARe stupid, stubborn, pig-headed
and outright dishonest.
Either way, my hat's off to you because, while you almost never post
anything subtantive - vague assertions, bluffs and boasting are NOT
substance, Tony - you do provide a launching pad for some very
informative and well-written rebuttals that, themselves, are very
educational.
Keep up the good work.
Skitter...@yahoo.com
He got caught in a calm, global-like flood of fact and is still trying to
find an Ararat?
Skitter the Cat
Bobby D. Bryant
I've never previously noticed facts causing his flood of b.s. to subside.