Challenges to evolutionists, #16-20
Mark Isaak
issued. People could come up with very little that would be useful in
a counterargument with a creationist. See if you can do better this
time. I want hard facts, with references.
This time, the questions cover just two topics--geology and cultural
anthropology.
#16: Evaporites can form from precipitation, without evaporation;
hence they could form during a global flood.
#17: Evaporites are far too thick to have been formed via evaporation
of inland seas.
#18: Evaporites contain no organic matter. We would expect organic
matter mixed with the salt if it came from evaporated seas.
#19: The oldest human structures, such as pyramids, are already very
complex, showing that humans didn't arise gradually.
#20: Similarly, the first known languages were already very complex.
--
Mark Isaak at...@earthlink.net
Don't read everything you belive.
John Harshman
Mark Isaak wrote:
> I was greatly disappointed by the responses to the last challenges I
> issued. People could come up with very little that would be useful in
> a counterargument with a creationist. See if you can do better this
> time. I want hard facts, with references.
>
> This time, the questions cover just two topics--geology and cultural
> anthropology.
>
> #16: Evaporites can form from precipitation, without evaporation;
> hence they could form during a global flood.
>
> #17: Evaporites are far too thick to have been formed via evaporation
> of inland seas.
>
> #18: Evaporites contain no organic matter. We would expect organic
> matter mixed with the salt if it came from evaporated seas.
>
> #19: The oldest human structures, such as pyramids, are already very
> complex, showing that humans didn't arise gradually.
The pyramids are by no means the oldest human structures. I think
specifically of that neolithic lake village in Switzerland. And of
course remains of Homo sapiens predate the pyramids, and even the oldest
known structures, by many thousands of years. Get your own damn references.
> #20: Similarly, the first known languages were already very complex.
The first known languages are all written ones (or they wouldn't be
known, there being no tape recorders in antiquity), so this says nothing
about the origin of language, only the origin of writing. Since most
peoples in the world have historically been illiterate, the claim makes
no sense. And so far we don't need any references because all I'm doing
is pointing out facts that everyone already knows and showing there's a
logical fault in the argument.
If however this is a claim about the origin of *written* language, it's
false too. There are for example clear, very simple, non-linguistic
precursors (no grammar) to cuneiform writing. And I gave you a reference
for this the last time you asked the question.
gen2rev
>
> I was greatly disappointed by the responses to the last challenges I
> issued. People could come up with very little that would be useful in
> a counterargument with a creationist. See if you can do better this
> time. I want hard facts, with references.
>
> This time, the questions cover just two topics--geology and cultural
> anthropology.
>
> #16: Evaporites can form from precipitation, without evaporation;
> hence they could form during a global flood.
>
> #17: Evaporites are far too thick to have been formed via evaporation
> of inland seas.
>
> #18: Evaporites contain no organic matter. We would expect organic
> matter mixed with the salt if it came from evaporated seas.
>
> #19: The oldest human structures, such as pyramids, are already very
> complex, showing that humans didn't arise gradually.
What's so complex about a pyramid? Even if it's granted that pyramids
*are* complex, there's a known evolutionary sequence of pyramids.
> #20: Similarly, the first known languages were already very complex.
And how are the complexities of the first known languages judged? From
their written records, since as far as I know, there are no native
speakers of Summerian left. Writing requires a certain amount of
sophistication, more sophistication than a spoken language. If a
language has no written form, it won't leave behind a record, and
there's no reason to believe that simple languages had written
analogues.
Boikat
"Mark Isaak" <at...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:abkfdvsd28egr0tmk...@4ax.com...
> I was greatly disappointed by the responses to the last challenges I
> issued. People could come up with very little that would be useful in
> a counterargument with a creationist. See if you can do better this
> time. I want hard facts, with references.
>
> This time, the questions cover just two topics--geology and cultural
> anthropology.
>
> #16: Evaporites can form from precipitation, without evaporation;
> hence they could form during a global flood.
So? They are forming now, yet there does not appear to be a world wide
flood occuring at the moment.
http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/DAAC_DOCS/geomorphology/GEO_6/GEO_PLATE_C-21.HTML
>
> #17: Evaporites are far too thick to have been formed via evaporation
> of inland seas.
Yes, they are far too thick to have formed in the last 6000 years or so.
The mechanism for evaporite deposits to occur are known, and given the
actual time involved, the thicknesses of evaporite deposits are not a
problem.
>
> #18: Evaporites contain no organic matter. We would expect organic
> matter mixed with the salt if it came from evaporated seas.
Usually, where the conditions are conducive to evaporite deposit or mineral
precipitation to occure, those conditions are not too hospitable to life.
Even so, there are some examples of organics in evaporites. A few years
ago, someone even extracted bacteria that had been trapped in salt crystals.
>
> #19: The oldest human structures, such as pyramids, are already very
> complex, showing that humans didn't arise gradually.
That's because prior to stone working, wood and even bone, was used to build
shelters, temples, and so on Prior to the great civilizations of old, human
settlements were made of wood, and being semi-nomadic, they had little time
to bother with stoneworking. Even so, the remains of structures have been
found: Bone huts in Siberia, sites where holes were dug into the soil to
hold support poles for wood structure building throughout Europe, and so on.
>
> #20: Similarly, the first known languages were already very complex.
Back before Europeans arrived in the America's, very few NA natives had a
written language. In 1821, a Cherokee by the name of Sequoyah decided to
created a written representation of the Cherokee language after seeing the
Europeans had a written language. At first, he tried pictograms, but soon
realized that was not practicle, and instead broke the spoken language into
syllables. Just because Cherokee writting did not exist before 1821, does
not mean that the Cherokee nation did not exist prior to (or even shortly
before) 1821.
>
> --
> Mark Isaak at...@earthlink.net
> Don't read everything you belive.
>
--
Boikat
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons
are no match for a good blaster
at your side, kid."
Han Solo, Star Wars, Episode IV
"I find your lack of faith disturbing"
Darth Vader, Star Wars, Episode IV
NA Sides
<at...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>I was greatly disappointed by the responses to the last challenges I
>issued. People could come up with very little that would be useful in
>a counterargument with a creationist. See if you can do better this
>time. I want hard facts, with references.
>
>This time, the questions cover just two topics--geology and cultural
>anthropology.
>
>#16: Evaporites can form from precipitation, without evaporation;
>hence they could form during a global flood.
I think this requires a super-saturated solution, doesn't it? Pretty
hard to see how extremely large super-saturated regions could exist in
the oceans. It's even more far-fetched to imagine such could exist
during a turbulent global flood when fresh and salt water were mixed.
>#17: Evaporites are far too thick to have been formed via evaporation
>of inland seas.
Once your sea partially dries up, but you still have inflow from
rivers, you have a process for producing evaporites that could
function for tens of thousands of years.
>#18: Evaporites contain no organic matter. We would expect organic
>matter mixed with the salt if it came from evaporated seas.
It's tough for most organisms to make a living in super-satuarated
brine solutions.
>#19: The oldest human structures, such as pyramids, are already very
>complex, showing that humans didn't arise gradually.
Even Neandertals created wooden or ivory and mammoth bone structures.
>#20: Similarly, the first known languages were already very complex.
Most linguists today think that our species possesses innate language
acquisition abilities that allow us to create syntactically and
morphologically complex languages more or less from scratch.
NAS
Bigdakine
>From: Mark Isaak at...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
>Date: 5/30/03 12:01 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <abkfdvsd28egr0tmk...@4ax.com>
>
>I was greatly disappointed by the responses to the last challenges I
>issued. People could come up with very little that would be useful in
>a counterargument with a creationist.
Which challenges did you feel were not sufficiently addressed?
And why do you feel you are entitled to an ongoing dog and poney show?
Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"
Noelie S. Alito
news:abkfdvsd28egr0tmk...@4ax.com...
> issued. People could come up with very little that would be useful in
> a counterargument with a creationist. See if you can do better this
> time. I want hard facts, with references.
As a geology undergrad/dilettante, I'm Too Stupid to handle direct
journal research, but my textbooks do cite their sources. Sooo...
in lieu of any better responses (like sedsters Glenn Morton or
Keith Littleton), here are my $0.02:
>
> This time, the questions cover just two topics--geology and cultural
> anthropology.
"Geology for 50, Alex."
> #16: Evaporites can form from precipitation, without evaporation;
> hence they could form during a global flood.
Evaporites form from precipitation from oversaturated solutions.
This means 1) salts are added and/or 2) water is evaporated.
If anything, a flood produced by excessive rain (i.e., fresh water),
would _dilute_ the waters, which would then tend to resorb the
precipitated minerals. [This is intro chem here. Do we really
need references?] My textbook Boggs, p.215 describes research
(gives citations) on what it takes to get minerals to precipitate from
_ocean_water_:
"Gypsum appears when the original volume has been reduced to
about 20 percent, and halite forms when the water volume reaches
approximately 10 percent of the original volume...."
Two paragraphs later, Boggs reports:
"Some ancient evaporite deposits, such as the Permian Zechstein of
the North Sea area exceed 2 km in thickness, yet evaporation of a
column of seawater 1000-m thick will produce only about 15 m of
evaporites."
Also, evaporite deposits occur at different stratigraphic levels
around the planet, with different signature mineral compositions,
and with a variety of overlying strata, which is inconsistent with
a single, year-long depositional event. [This is too general an
observation to have a specific reference--the literature itself
describes individual deposits based on their relative stratigraphy
and composition, addressing varied environments and sequences
of deposition. <shrug>]
> #17: Evaporites are far too thick to have been formed via evaporation
> of inland seas.
The thickest evaporite layers would have to be produced by either
a very long-term depositional process (which rules out the1-year
Floode), or brine basins separated from the more dilute ocean water
(again, contrary to Floode conditions).
The sedimentology explanation is consistent with other evidence
of long-term regional cycles of uplift/subsidence combined
with changes in sea level.
[This paper describes a sequence of stacked salt beds in North
Dakota, where the combined thickness is hundreds of meters
thick, from cyclical sea transgression/regression into the Williston
basin:
<http://www.state.nd.us/ndgs//Newsletter/NL01S/PDF/salts01.pdf> ]
> #18: Evaporites contain no organic matter. We would expect organic
> matter mixed with the salt if it came from evaporated seas.
Organic matter *is* found in evaporites, and is even suggested
as a way we can detect preserved organic material on Mars!
<http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2003/pdf/1675.pdf>
[Well, *I* thought it was interesting. In any case, the premise
of their being no organic matter is wrong.]
However, organic matter is much less likely in evaporative/precipitating
environments because fewer organisms thrive in brackish or
saline environments.
__________________________________________________
My at-hand woodpulp sources (forgive the ref format):
Blatt, H. and Tracy, RJ, _Petrology:_Igneous_Sed._and Met., 2nd ed.,
WH Freeman and Co. 1996.
Boggs, S. Jr. Principles_of_Sedimentology_and_Stratigraphy, 3rd ed.,
Prentice-Hall
__________________________________________________
Noelie
--
"The best way to get information out of Usenet is not to post a question,
but the wrong information." --William Paley
Harlequin
[snip]
> #16: Evaporites can form from precipitation, without evaporation;
> hence they could form during a global flood.
>
> #17: Evaporites are far too thick to have been formed via evaporation
> of inland seas.
>
> #18: Evaporites contain no organic matter. We would expect organic
> matter mixed with the salt if it came from evaporated seas.
[snip]
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52796#post974881
That post has what you are looking for on evaporates.
There is information there that really could use being in an FAQ if
someone was willing to write it. Indeed #18 (and the associated
claim of the ICR of the salt has no impurities) is something
that can really be used to embarrass the YECs.
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"
"...Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all
told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to
his or her opinion. Well, that's horsepuckey, of course. We are not
entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our _informed_ opinions.
Without research, without background, without understanding, it's
nothing. It's just bibble-babble...."
- Harlan Ellison
Bobby D. Bryant
> #19: The oldest human structures, such as pyramids, are already very
> complex, showing that humans didn't arise gradually.
The pyramids aren't the oldest human structures, by a long shot.
And even if they were, #19 would still be a non sequitur.
> #20: Similarly, the first known languages were already very complex.
And the point of that qualitative observation is...?
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
John Wilkins
They argue, if I am not mistaken, that languages can only get simpler
over time. Pennock discusses this I think.
--
John Wilkins
"And this is a damnable doctrine" - Charles Darwin, Autobiography
SortingItOut
<snip>
>
> #18: Evaporites contain no organic matter. We would expect organic
> matter mixed with the salt if it came from evaporated seas.
I came into this thread knowing practically nothing about evaporites.
After about 5 minutes of Google searching with "evaporite organic
matter", I found these:
http://cmex-www.arc.nasa.gov/Exo_Strat/Docs/extinct.html (search for
"evaporite")
Excerpt:
When a lake shrinks or disappears by evaporation, the more- soluble
salts can precipitate and capture other constituents. When evaporites
crystallize from solution, they commonly entrap large numbers of
salt-tolerant bacteria within brine inclusions.
(end excerpt)
http://www.jpg.co.uk/ab_jul_01_4.htm
Excerpt:
Recent environments that lie in waters with elevated salinities are
sites of very high biological productivity that can be used as models
for evaporite-related sedimentation in the geological record. Of
particular importance is the range of elevated salinities well above
the range for normal marine biota, in which organic-rich
cyanobacterial carbonates form and accumulate in large quantities.
Such organic matter collected from a number of modern evaporative
settings has been examined in terms of oil potential and for
biomarkers characteristic of hypersaline environments.
(end excerpt)
The ease with which I found these suggests that creationists that
issue "challenges" such as yours above are the lowest of the low.
This "challenge" represents some kind of sleazy deception that gives
the illusion of credibility to the challenge. And how anyone could
issue such a challenge without making a simple check such as mine is
beyond me. And then to demand references!
My opinion of creationist challenges has sunk to new lows.
<snip>
TomS
<abkfdvsd28egr0tmk...@4ax.com>, Mark stated..."
[...snip...]
>#19: The oldest human structures, such as pyramids, are already very
>complex, showing that humans didn't arise gradually.
You might want to check the Guiness Book of Records on this. I
believe that they have a category for "oldest human structure", which
is considerably older than the Pyramids. A reference like this may
be more accessible than any archeological publication.
Tom S.
John Harshman
John Harshman wrote:
>
> Mark Isaak wrote:
>
>
>>I was greatly disappointed by the responses to the last challenges I
>>issued. People could come up with very little that would be useful in
>>a counterargument with a creationist. See if you can do better this
>>time. I want hard facts, with references.
>>
>>This time, the questions cover just two topics--geology and cultural
>>anthropology.
>>
>>#16: Evaporites can form from precipitation, without evaporation;
>>hence they could form during a global flood.
>>
>>#17: Evaporites are far too thick to have been formed via evaporation
>>of inland seas.
>>
>>#18: Evaporites contain no organic matter. We would expect organic
>>matter mixed with the salt if it came from evaporated seas.
>>
>>#19: The oldest human structures, such as pyramids, are already very
>>complex, showing that humans didn't arise gradually.
>>
>
>
> The pyramids are by no means the oldest human structures. I think
> specifically of that neolithic lake village in Switzerland. And of
> course remains of Homo sapiens predate the pyramids, and even the oldest
> known structures, by many thousands of years. Get your own damn references.
It happens that I have a reference to some considerably older structures
in Egypt. It's not all that good a one. I suggest you look for some
recent college text in anthropology or archaeology. My reference is an
old text: B. M. Fagan. 1989. Peoples of the earth: An introduction to
world prehistory. Scott, Foresman and Co., Glenview, IL. There are
campsites in the Nile valley from 15,000 ybp, and "the earliest dated
Neolithic settlements from the Nile Valley, both from Egypt and the
Sudan, dae to between 6300 and 5300 years ago." He discusses an
excavated fishing village in the Fayum Depression, where "a cluster of
oval houses and shelters were built half underground and roofed with mud
and sticks". Not quite the Great Pyramid, I think. Of course the problem
with this, from a creationist point of view, is that all the dates must
be bogus, because they would predate the flood. (Then again, so do many
of the pyramids.) But that's an argument against the flood, isn't it?
>>#20: Similarly, the first known languages were already very complex.
>>
>
>
> The first known languages are all written ones (or they wouldn't be
> known, there being no tape recorders in antiquity), so this says nothing
> about the origin of language, only the origin of writing. Since most
> peoples in the world have historically been illiterate, the claim makes
> no sense. And so far we don't need any references because all I'm doing
> is pointing out facts that everyone already knows and showing there's a
> logical fault in the argument.
>
> If however this is a claim about the origin of *written* language, it's
> false too. There are for example clear, very simple, non-linguistic
> precursors (no grammar) to cuneiform writing. And I gave you a reference
> for this the last time you asked the question.
All right. F. Coulmas. 1989. The writing systems of the world.
Blackwell, Oxford.
Von Smith
> issued. People could come up with very little that would be useful in
> a counterargument with a creationist. See if you can do better this
> time. I want hard facts, with references.
So do we. Where are your references for any of these arguments?
>
> This time, the questions cover just two topics--geology and cultural
> anthropology.
>
> #16: Evaporites can form from precipitation, without evaporation;
> hence they could form during a global flood.
LOL. I'm not sure what the source of this claim is, but I'd be
willing to bet that "precipitation" wasn't referring to rain or
snow...
>
> #17: Evaporites are far too thick to have been formed via evaporation
> of inland seas.
Really? I'd like to see your calculation of how thick you think they
should be if they formed that way.
>
> #18: Evaporites contain no organic matter. We would expect organic
> matter mixed with the salt if it came from evaporated seas.
Others have pointed out that this is not true. At any rate, you
wouldn't expect to find a *lot* of organics, for the same reason you
don't find a lot of fish in the Dead Sea. AIUI, evaporites only form
if the water is veeeery salty.
>
> #19: The oldest human structures, such as pyramids, are already very
> complex, showing that humans didn't arise gradually.
Pyramids are not the oldest human structures. And, as it turns out,
their design *did* evolve gradually, from simple square or rectangular
shrines, to putting a smaller square shrine atop a larger one, to
repeating this several times to get what is basically a ziggaurat, to
a couple partly succussful attempts to build a true pyramid.
>
> #20: Similarly, the first known languages were already very complex.
How would you know? The earliest languages we know are written ones.
Von Smith
Fortuna nimis dat multis, satis nulli.
Thomas McDonald
"TomS" <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:bba4p...@drn.newsguy.com...
I'm not clear on what "structures" means in this context. If it means
"buildings", then there are a number of proto-Neolithic and early Neolithic
sites that fit that bill.
One that springs to mind is Catal Hoyuk in Turkey. It has a complex of
habitations with no indication of specialization, public space, public
religious space, etc., at all. The houses are built together, as one large
warren where the houses share walls with their neighbors. They have a
reasonably consistent form, but each appears to have been built by its
occupants; there is no indication of a specialized building trade. Each
house has burials, and the houses seem to have been demolished and re-built
in place on a regualar basis.
Catal Hoyuk dates to more than 5000 BCE (over 7000 ya); was inhabited
for many centuries; and does not appear to have been (at first anyway) based
on agriculture.
If the meaning of "buildings" includes earth lodges and semi-permanent
bases for temporary shelters, then the date for such evidence can be pushed
back to at least 30,000 ya, and probably much further than that.
And, of course, there is much evidence for simpler dwellings going back
quite a ways before _that_.
And, of course, as others have noted, pyramids, whereever they are found
around the globe, have archaeological records of long, in situ, development
of increasingly complex structures. The Egyptian pyramids are probably best
known in this regard.
Tom McDonald
Mark Isaak
(Bigdakine) wrote:
>Which challenges did you feel were not sufficiently addressed?
The possibility of evaporites forming by precipitation was one of
them. I don't remember the other.
>And why do you feel you are entitled to an ongoing dog and poney show?
That's what t.o. is for. Correction: That's what t.o. *is*.
My purpose is to put together reponses to *all* creationist claims.
And since the creationists themselves don't bring up *all* of them in
a timely manner, I need to bring up some of them myself. Rest assured
that I am gathering responses in reply to other posts, too. For
example, I have recently added answers to claims about vestigial
organs and red Sirius based on t.o. posts.
I have followed t.o. long enough to know the high quality of responses
that the posters here are capable of. That is why I am not satisfied
with the bulk of the responses.
Mark Isaak
<ts...@wwt.net> wrote:
>"TomS" <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:bba4p...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> "On Fri, 30 May 2003 22:01:23 +0000 (UTC), in article
>> <abkfdvsd28egr0tmk...@4ax.com>, Mark stated..."
>> [...snip...]
>> >#19: The oldest human structures, such as pyramids, are already very
>> >complex, showing that humans didn't arise gradually.
>> [...snip...]
>>
>> You might want to check the Guiness Book of Records on this.
>
> I'm not clear on what "structures" means in this context. If it means
>"buildings", then there are a number of proto-Neolithic and early Neolithic
>sites that fit that bill.
>
> One that springs to mind is Catal Hoyuk in Turkey. [...]
> Catal Hoyuk dates to more than 5000 BCE (over 7000 ya); was inhabited
>for many centuries; and does not appear to have been (at first anyway) based
>on agriculture.
>
> And, of course, as others have noted, pyramids, whereever they are found
>around the globe, have archaeological records of long, in situ, development
>of increasingly complex structures. The Egyptian pyramids are probably best
>known in this regard.
I found a page on "Stone Age Habitations":
http://www.abotech.com/Articles/Kowalski01.htm
It lists a 2 Mya circle of stones as the oldest evidence of a
structure, and Terra Amata, 380,000 years old, as the next oldest.
I would still like a good reference that discusses the history of the
pyramids themselves. Any recommendations?
--
Mark Isaak at...@earthlink.net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Mark Isaak
<noe...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>"Mark Isaak" <at...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>> #17: Evaporites are far too thick to have been formed via evaporation
>> of inland seas.
>
>The thickest evaporite layers would have to be produced by either
>a very long-term depositional process (which rules out the1-year
>Floode), or brine basins separated from the more dilute ocean water
>(again, contrary to Floode conditions).
>
>The sedimentology explanation is consistent with other evidence
>of long-term regional cycles of uplift/subsidence combined
>with changes in sea level.
>[This paper describes a sequence of stacked salt beds in North
>Dakota, where the combined thickness is hundreds of meters
>thick, from cyclical sea transgression/regression into the Williston
>basin:
><http://www.state.nd.us/ndgs//Newsletter/NL01S/PDF/salts01.pdf> ]
Nobody has mentioned salt diapirs. Would they be worth mentioning as
contributing to thickness?
Thomas McDonald
"Mark Isaak" <at...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
Mark,
That is an interesting website. I like it. However, it might be well
to be a bit skeptical of the author's accuracy. In one section, he says
Homo habilis is the _decendant_ of Homo erectus. In fact, Homo erectus
arose towards the end of H.h.'s time, and continued, arguably, well into the
time of archaic Homo sapiens. Otherwise, my quick scan suggested to me that
he had a useful site.
>
> I would still like a good reference that discusses the history of the
> pyramids themselves. Any recommendations?
>
Damn. My studies on this topic were during my archie grad school days,
almost 20 y.a. now. Even then, most of my references were journal articles
and papers, not textbooks. (Don't know about you, but those things tend to
find there way to the lower reaches of storage units for me. Sigh. I'll
have to conduct my own personal archaeological dig to find what's not been
lost or water-rotted.)
I can look this up (although not tonight); but perhaps other folks have
more accessible references readier to hand.
Tom McDonald
Thomas H. Faller
>Nobody has mentioned salt diapirs. Would they be worth mentioning as
>contributing to thickness?
I believe that the thickness of diapirs results from the reduction
in area caused by vertical salt migration. Salt deposits are
less dense than their surrounding strata. If an overhead weakness
allows the salt to start migrating towards the surface (a fault
will do), the layer will become a dome and the salt will migrate
towards the dome from the original layer. So the thickness of the
dome or diapir may bear little relationship to the the thickness of
the original deposit (the geology may determine the amount of
area which moves to the diapir rather than the thickness - local
stress or faulting can produce large, nearly vertical diapirs.)
Diapirs are an argument against recent flooding, as the time
involved to form and migrate one is substantial. But how many
creationists can understand that?
Tom Faller
Thomas H. Faller
>I would still like a good reference that discusses the history of the
>pyramids themselves. Any recommendations?
I seem to remember a book called "Valley of the Kings" which
showed the development of pyramids from simpler structures and
had diagrams and photos of surviving examples.
Tom Faller
TomS
<mnfldvcsc8vcrs72k...@4ax.com>, Mark stated..."
[...snip...]
>I would still like a good reference that discusses the history of the
>pyramids themselves. Any recommendations?
I. E. S. Edwards wrote a book quite some time ago, and it has been
updated and republished often. I haven't seen the most recent edition
(1991), but it looks like it covers precisely the topic you're interested
in, the history of the pyramids. Although it is advertized as "with new
material", it might be outdated, though.
Iorweth Eiddon Stephen Edwards
The Pyramids of Egypt
Penguin, 1991
Tom S.
Theda
Mark Isaak is one of t.o.'s resident geniuses. He has an exhaustive
archive of all
creationist arguments, and is in an ongoing project to develop a set
of
crib notes anyone can use to refute any of the standard arguments.
That's what this thread is working on.
Don't feel too bad, anyway. You gave me my best laugh of the day, and
I needed it.
Your friend,
Theda
Noelie S. Alito
> On Sat, 31 May 2003 01:23:52 +0000 (UTC), "Noelie S. Alito"
> <noe...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>
> >"Mark Isaak" <at...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
> >> #17: Evaporites are far too thick to have been formed via evaporation
> >> of inland seas.
> >
> >The thickest evaporite layers would have to be produced by either
> >a very long-term depositional process (which rules out the1-year
> >Floode), or brine basins separated from the more dilute ocean water
> >(again, contrary to Floode conditions).
> >
> >The sedimentology explanation is consistent with other evidence
> >of long-term regional cycles of uplift/subsidence combined
> >with changes in sea level.
> >[This paper describes a sequence of stacked salt beds in North
> >Dakota, where the combined thickness is hundreds of meters
> >thick, from cyclical sea transgression/regression into the Williston
> >basin:
> ><http://www.state.nd.us/ndgs//Newsletter/NL01S/PDF/salts01.pdf> ]
>
> Nobody has mentioned salt diapirs. Would they be worth mentioning as
> contributing to thickness?
AIUI, in the literature all references to bed thickness are the up-down
thickness of the horizontal beds, and do not include the height (or
side-to-side thickness) of the blobby diapirs, unless explicitly
called out.
Noelie
--
In Memoriam R.K. Goldhammer May 26, 2003
Keith Littleton
Mark Isaak <at...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> asked:
>I would still like a good reference that discusses
>the history of the pyramids themselves.
>
>Any recommendations?
A good place to ask that question is the
"In the Hall of Ma'at" web page at:
http://ns37.dot5hosting.com/~admin62/maat/list.php?f=1&collapse=1
http://ns37.dot5hosting.com/~admin62/maat/post.php?f=1
http://ns37.dot5hosting.com/~admin62/maat/index.php
If you explain the reason that you want this
information, I you predict that you would get
recommendations for an excellent book concerning
the history of the pyramids. There are a number
of pro-science people who inhabit that web page,
including Mike Brass, whose book they advertise
on it. The "Hall of Ma'at" is a good place to ask
answers for archaeology oriented rebuttals for
your list of creationist claims as it is the
archaeological equivalent of the Talk.Origins
Archive and t.o newgroup. However, it is
meant for the discussion of archaeology and
and psuedoarchaeology, not evolution.
The answer that you will get to Creationist Claim CG030
is that whoever made that claim is simply wrong
about the Giza pyramids being the oldest structures.
In fact, if a person looks at what has been found in
Egypt, the oldest structures are very simple mud brick
structures with a complete range of "transitional
forms" having been found in exact chronological order
between them and the complex Giza pyramids.
Creationist Claim CG030 shows that some Young
Earth creationists are as ignorant about archaeology,
as they are about egology.
By the way, I am curious, if the below t.o posts
of mine were useful to you. Should I continue?
The posts are:
1. Creationist Claims CD210 of Mark Issak
2. Creationist Claim CD011.4 of Mark Issak
3. Creationist Claim CD111 of Mark Issak
As time permits, I will look into the evaporite questions.
Yours,
Keith Littleton
New Orleans, LA
Dave
The Honourable Keith Littleton wrote:
> Creationist Claim CG030 shows that some Young
> Earth creationists are as ignorant about archaeology,
> as they are about egology.
YECs are pretty good at egology, I'd say.
--
Intelligent and witty comment.
Mark Isaak
<kaolini...@katie.vnet.net> wrote:
>In Message-ID: <mnfldvcsc8vcrs72k...@4ax.com>
>Mark Isaak <at...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> asked:
>
>>I would still like a good reference that discusses
>>the history of the pyramids themselves.
>>
>>Any recommendations?
>
>A good place to ask that question is the
>"In the Hall of Ma'at" web page at:
>
>http://ns37.dot5hosting.com/~admin62/maat/list.php?f=1&collapse=1
>http://ns37.dot5hosting.com/~admin62/maat/post.php?f=1
>http://ns37.dot5hosting.com/~admin62/maat/index.php
Thanks. I'll keep them in mind.
>By the way, I am curious, if the below t.o posts
>of mine were useful to you. Should I continue?
>
>The posts are:
>
>1. Creationist Claims CD210 of Mark Issak
>
>2. Creationist Claim CD011.4 of Mark Issak
>
>3. Creationist Claim CD111 of Mark Issak
Yes. In fact, I pretty much took your CD011.4 remarks in their
entirety (and listed you as the author). CD111 I had answered
already, but I added references.
>As time permits, I will look into the evaporite questions.
I have written up stuff based on remarks that have already passed
here. They are up on my website now; let me know if you have anything
to add. (http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/list.html)
Mark Isaak
cut, paste, and clean up the formatting, I will let people follow
links. Please speak up if you have any additions or corrections.
On Fri, 30 May 2003 22:01:23 +0000 (UTC), Mark Isaak
<at...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>#16: Evaporites can form from precipitation, without evaporation;
>hence they could form during a global flood.
http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/CD/CD301.html
>#17: Evaporites are far too thick to have been formed via evaporation
>of inland seas.
http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/CD/CD302.html
>#18: Evaporites contain no organic matter. We would expect organic
>matter mixed with the salt if it came from evaporated seas.
http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/CD/CD303.html
>#19: The oldest human structures, such as pyramids, are already very
>complex, showing that humans didn't arise gradually.
http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/CG/CG030.html
>#20: Similarly, the first known languages were already very complex.
http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/CG/CG110.html