Page 68 of 97 FirstFirst ... 185867686978 ... LastLast
Results 2,346 to 2,380 of 3391

Thread: Scientific knowledge

  1. #2346
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    37,246

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by lupussonic View Post
    There you go getting all sciency again...
    Sorry, thread drift.

    No, wait . . .
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  2. #2347
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Deepest Darkest Wales
    Posts
    18,835

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    More suitable science...
    Someday, I'm going to settle down and be a grumpy old man.

  3. #2348
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Fredericton, New Brunswick
    Posts
    33,004

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    This is just the most extraordinary bunch of people ...
    If I use the word "God," I sure don't mean an old man in the sky who just loves the occasional goat sacrifice. - Anne Lamott

  4. #2349
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    37,246

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by P.I. Stazzer-Newt View Post
    More suitable science...
    Stanley actually appeared in the first ever episode of Kenneth Horne's original (and later to be long-running under various guises) comedy series along with stalwarts Kenneth Williams, Hugh Paddick and Ron Moody. He played 'Mr Henry Spindlethroe of the International Atomic Research Association' in a three-minute sketch where he answered Ken's queries about atomic power in his own peculiar way.
    Horne's early demise was a great loss.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  5. #2350
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Deepest Darkest Wales
    Posts
    18,835

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    You can still catch to occasional repeat of "Round The Horne" on Radio Four Extra...

    Or ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo08C0hWgk


    I'm Sorry I'll Read That Again.
    Someday, I'm going to settle down and be a grumpy old man.

  6. #2351
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    786

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Last edited by Frank!; 12-07-2017 at 09:02 PM.

  7. #2352
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    24,454

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Okay I ŕead and I agree with Scientific American.
    Liberalism, the Nazis were shouting from the rooftops, meant weakness: James Holland

  8. #2353
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    47,466

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Lordy, that second one is just embarrassing.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  9. #2354
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    786

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    [QUOTE=Peerie Maa;5416684]Frank, just ......"


    A wee test for you:
    What is meant by the half life of a radioactive isotope?
    What is the half life of potassium40?[/QUOTE)

    Top of search list for "radioactive decay rate not constant "


    https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www....ant-after-all/
    Last edited by Frank!; 12-07-2017 at 11:33 PM.

  10. #2355
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    UK. Cornwall, Suffolk.
    Posts
    3,705

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    A half life of an isotope is the time it takes for the radioactivity to reduce by half. I learned this age 9.

    The decay rate is not constant, it is inverse exponential, like a cooling water curve.

    And ?

  11. #2356
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    24,454

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Okay another serious question. How do you peer review a creationist theory or...ahem...fact? A fellow creationist consults the old testament and says, yep that matches my interpretation.
    Liberalism, the Nazis were shouting from the rooftops, meant weakness: James Holland

  12. #2357
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    37,246

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    [QUOTE=Frank!;5417550]
    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Frank, just ......"


    A wee test for you:
    What is meant by the half life of a radioactive isotope?
    What is the half life of potassium40?[/QUOTE)

    Top of search list for "radioactive decay rate not constant "


    https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www....ant-after-all/
    As it turns out, they probably aren't.
    After poring over the data, engineers and physicists noted a recurring pattern 33 days long that affected the decay rates of the various radioactive substances. That's a pattern that corresponds to the rotation of the Sun's core. Which got the physicists to thinking that maybe the sun was involved. But the only explanation that makes sense would be solar neutrinos -- which leads to a result that means, as one of the researchers observed, "What we're suggesting is that something that doesn't really interact with anything is changing something that can't be changed."
    OK did you find out what the half life of Potassium40 might be? Go and do that and then comment on what difference a 33 day cycle of variation might make.

    Carbon14 is a non issue as it is already calibrated for variation in C14 production variations.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  13. #2358
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    37,246

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by lupussonic View Post
    A half life of an isotope is the time it takes for the radioactivity to reduce by half. I learned this age 9.

    The decay rate is not constant, it is inverse exponential, like a cooling water curve.

    And ?
    The point is does Frank understand this?
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  14. #2359
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    37,246

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Frank, another task for you.
    First have a read of this: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/...nce-of-biology

    Then tell us or give us evidence that Creationists follow these steps:
    1. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
    2. Test the prediction.
    3. Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  15. #2360
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    786

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    [QUOTE=Peerie Maa;5417617]
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post

    OK did you find out what the half life of Potassium40 might be? Go and do that and then comment on what difference a 33 day cycle of variation might make.

    Carbon14 is a non issue as it is already calibrated for variation in C14 production variations.
    OK:

    Thankyou, Nick - I can take care of myself - no, you've gotta concern yerself bout yerself.

    that "ok" is the pointy end of the chinker in your armour

    now you have to satisfy yourself just how solid a foundation you stand on

    g'luk

    frank

  16. #2361
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    786

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Frank, another task for you.
    First have a read of this: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/...nce-of-biology

    Then tell us or give us evidence that Creationists follow these steps:
    1. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
    2. Test the prediction.
    3. Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

    HPM

    of course .....

  17. #2362
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    786

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by lupussonic View Post
    ......

    And ?
    check the post again

  18. #2363
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    37,246

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    [QUOTE=Frank!;5417642]
    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post

    OK:

    Thankyou, Nick - I can take care of myself - no, you've gotta concern yerself bout yerself.

    that "ok" is the pointy end of the chinker in your armour

    now you have to satisfy yourself just how solid a foundation you stand on

    g'luk

    frank
    Frank, Focus. Think about the question about potassium. Don't let your desire to avoid the question deflect you from the topic under discussion.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  19. #2364
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    37,246

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    HPM

    of course .....
    Meaningless post.
    Answer the question as put.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  20. #2365
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    786

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by TomF View Post
    Freedom!
    lost again - apart from little Mel Gibson in a skirt .....

    wuz that it?

  21. #2366
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Deepest Darkest Wales
    Posts
    18,835

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Oh but we loved our bait and switch.....
    Someday, I'm going to settle down and be a grumpy old man.

  22. #2367
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    786

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by WX View Post
    the only reality ..... well, of course, for a dogmatist, no contrary evidence is admissible

    Earth is the centre of the universe ..... interesting you should mention it:

    so here is a slice of a map of the universe, form us out to the outer reaches of the universe, done by the SDSS people:





    Figure 1. Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) map, each point showing the position of galaxies with respect to Earth at the apex. Their distances were determined from their spectra to create a 2 billion light-year-deep 3D map where each galaxy is shown as a single point. This is one half of the published map; the whole map shows 66,976 galaxies that lie near the plane of Earth’s equator from the 205,443 galaxies mapped. (From Astrophysical Research Consortium (ARC) and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) Collaboration, ref. 1.)

    Note:

    - a. the non-uniform structures (verboten under the current standard theory)

    - b. centred upon us ???!!!

    cheers,

    frank


    it appears centered on us because they mapped it from Earth. if they had mapped it from Mars it would appear to be centered on Mars.
    What non-uniform structures? I see masses of galaxies.[/QUOTE
    ]

    I suppose I might chance that you genuinely have failed to appreciate just what is depicted here .....

    - 1. True this is only 2,000,000,000 of the 14,000,000,000 LY radius of the universe, so the "pattern" here of the concentrated galaxies and the areas more spasely populated may not be so obvious , nor 'aligned' with this small portion of the universe in the rest of the universe - but what is shown here ought to be still startling enough to unsettle any dogmatists

    - 2. the Mars view would be less than a hairs breadth different (this thread being focussed on whack frank, nobody has had the integrity to correct you )

    - 3. as I understand it, that "ripples in a pond" effect should NOT be there - because under the standard theory of the formation of the universe, all such concentrations of galaxies should be totally smoothed out and randomised at this scale

    - 4. much less centred to our neighbourhood.

    - 5. it has been pointed out that the red-shift is "quantised" - again, such a pattern should not show at this scale.

  23. #2368
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    37,246

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    it appears centered on us because they mapped it from Earth. if they had mapped it from Mars it would appear to be centered on Mars.
    What non-uniform structures? I see masses of galaxies.[/QUOTE[/B][/I]]

    I suppose I might chance that you genuinely have failed to appreciate just what is depicted here .....

    - 1. True this is only 2,000,000,000 of the 14,000,000,000 LY radius of the universe, so the "pattern" here of the concentrated galaxies and the areas more spasely populated may not be so obvious , nor 'aligned' with this small portion of the universe in the rest of the universe - but what is shown here ought to be still startling enough to unsettle any dogmatists
    So, why startling? It is what it is.


    - 2. the Mars view would be less than a hairs breadth different (this thread being focussed on whack frank, nobody has had the integrity to correct you )
    I think that you miss the point. It is not about viewing from Mars or Viewing from Earth. It looks the same with the same rate of expansion from EVERYWHERE,

    - 3. as I understand it, that "ripples in a pond" effect should NOT be there - because under the standard theory of the formation of the universe, all such concentrations of galaxies should be totally smoothed out and randomised at this scale
    Not so:
    Why is it lumpy?

    In its early days, the universe was extremely smooth and homogenous... but not quite perfectly so. At the time the CMB was released, for example, its density was constant to about 1 part in 100,000. It is believed this smoothness comes about because of inflation, a time of extremely rapid expansion in the first 10-34 seconds of so of the universe's existence. This rapid expansion smoothed out any lumpiness the universe may have initially had, but quantum mechanical fluctuations introduced new ones - tiny fluctuations of density at all length scales. These tiny fluctuations have grown with time due to gravity (slightly denser regions attract more stuff to become denser yet), eventually providing the seeds for the galaxies and galaxy clusters we see today.

    This lumpiness affects the CMB largely because of gravitational redshifting. Radiation emitted from a dense spot in the sky has to fight against a bit of extra gravity as it heads toward our detectors. When it leaves that gravity well, the radiation will be a little less energetic than radiation emitted from a less-dense region, so that spot of the sky will appear to be a little colder. A map of the apparent temperature of the CMB across the sky thus gives you a map of the density of matter in the early universe.
    from http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Educat...ackground.html

    - 4. much less centred to our neighbourhood.

    - 5. it has been pointed out that the red-shift is "quantised" - again, such a pattern should not show at this scale.
    It looks as though that is a bit of a non issue.
    There's a pretty comprehensive wikipedia page on the subject. In summary....
    Throughout the 2000's conflicting results were published using the same data. The conflict seems to center on the selection effects of the surveys, and the corrections applied to account for them. I did a quick search for 'redshift quantisation' on the Arxiv and found no papers since 2009, which suggests the supporting data has been comprehensibly discredited, or explained away by natural mechanisms.
    There are two explanations for the quantization that do not require exotic cosmologies. The first is the large scale clustering of galaxies that traces the cosmic web. The walls and filaments formed in this web leads to groupings of galaxies around specific redshifts along the line of sight. The second explanation is the quantisation of emission from Hydrogen, known as the Lyman series. Since photons can only be released with certain energies, the measured redshifts are also quantised (this is only true in low pressure and temperature environments, otherwise pressure and thermal broadening occur).
    from https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/...t-quantization
    and
    It happens that all of these analyses suffer from either poor data-fitting models or bad statistics. Currently, with today's collections of galaxy and quasar redshifts from galaxy surveys, there is absolutely no statistically detectable evidence found for quantization of redshifts. Sky and Telescope reported this finding conclusively in its 2002 issue ("No Quantized Redshifts" 104:28, 2002). The "controversy" has been laid to rest, and only a few hangers-on such as Halton Arp and William Tift continue to ignore the vast preponderance of the evidence from modern sky surveys. The most recent, most complete, and most accurate measurements of quasar redshifts do not support a distribution of galaxy and quasar "celestial spheres" centered on our location. Indeed, as galaxy surveys have been collecting more and more quasar counts, the quantization coincidences are not seen as model phenomena.
    from https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...ized-Redshifts

    It all reads back to the scientific method.
    Notice something.
    create a hypothesis to explain it
    search for data that tests the hypotheses
    if the data contradicts the hypotheses abandon it and come up with a better one.

    Creationists just ignore conflicting data. Not science.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  24. #2369
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    786

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    So, .......................



    from http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Educat...ackground.html
    It looks as though that is a bit of a non issue. from https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/...t-quantization
    and from https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...ized-Redshifts

    I would not be too sure how much of a non-issue - apart from Arp and Tift (no lightweights) and their supporters who do not seem to have thrown in the towel (sorry, lost the links - but if interested I just searched on <"Arp Tift">)

    https://creation.com/the-elements-of...nt-to-creation

    might help focus your research in the dissenting area, assuming preparedness to adopt a true scientific attitude and thus address criticisms beyond ones own comfort zone.


    as you note in the following:


    It all reads back to the scientific method.
    Notice something.
    create a hypothesis to explain it
    search for data that tests the hypotheses
    if the data contradicts the hypotheses abandon it and come up with a better one.


    - but then add the gratuitous comment:


    Creationists just ignore conflicting data. Not science.

    which, I suggest is merely a by-product of evolutionists insecurity .
    how do you split the original quote?

  25. #2370
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    37,246

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    how do you split the original quote?
    All you need to do is insert [/QUOTE] where you want the split and [QUOTE] where you want the quote to continue.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  26. #2371
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    37,246

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    - but then add the gratuitous comment:


    Creationists just ignore conflicting data. Not science.

    which, I suggest is merely a by-product of evolutionists insecurity .
    No not really, that is what we have shown you that they do, post after post.
    Like claiming that one small patch of conglomerate in Old Rad Sandstone is proof of a flood, ignoring that most of the Old Red Sandstone (the sandstone bit) was windblown as indicated by the photo of the quarry face that I gave you.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  27. #2372
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    786

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    No not really, that is what we have shown you that they do, post after post.
    Nick, please cease this particular form of gaming - it could easily be turned against you.

    After the Watermelon / Bat fiasco I would have expected you to become more conscious of the glass house surrounding you.

    There is, however an issue of even more import - and that is the allegation that creationists lied and misrepresented Gould in 'that' quote.

    May I suggest Stripping the passage of the identifying labels "Evolutionist" and "Creationist" and submitting the problem to a class in basic Logic or Philosophy - and seeing if your interpretation holds up.

    Alternatively, reverse the appellations, and see what case could be made against Evilutionists.


    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Like claiming that one small patch of conglomerate in Old Rad Sandstone is proof of a flood, ignoring that most of the Old Red Sandstone (the sandstone bit) was windblown as indicated by the photo of the quarry face that I gave you.
    I have held off on the Old Red Sandstone, knowing of a similar layer in the Grand Canyon, that was interpreted as windblown desert dunes, but evidence emerged that it was indeed more likely that it was "marine" sediment - just like all the layers above and below it.
    I thought it likely that the same likely applies to the O.R.S.
    From your photos I was unable to make any judgement - and i did wonder how you expected me to - or indeed just what you saw in the photos that made it obvious to you it was desert dune rather than flood sediment ...

    anyway here is a quote:

    "For many years evolutionary geologists have interpreted these cross beds by comparing them with currently forming sand deposits — the sand dunes in deserts which are dominated by sand grains made up of the mineral quartz, and which have inclined internal sand beds. Thus it has been proposed that the Coconino Sandstone accumulated over thousands and thousands of years in an immense windy desert by migrating sand dunes, the cross beds forming on the down-wind sides of the dunes as sand was deposited there."

    from: https://creation.com/startling-evidence-for-noahs-flood

    as ever,

    frank

    ps. Thx for the QUOTE tip

  28. #2373
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    37,246

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    Nick, please cease this particular form of gaming - it could easily be turned against you.

    After the Watermelon / Bat fiasco I would have expected you to become more conscious of the glass house surrounding you.
    Fiasco? The only issue is that you are demonstrating that you are ignorant of the science. No understanding of the transfer of momentum, nor of the conversion/transfer of kinetic energy from the impactor to the impacted body. So explain why it was a fiasco, do.

    There is, however an issue of even more import - and that is the allegation that creationists lied and misrepresented Gould in 'that' quote.

    May I suggest Stripping the passage of the identifying labels "Evolutionist" and "Creationist" and submitting the problem to a class in basic Logic or Philosophy - and seeing if your interpretation holds up.

    Alternatively, reverse the appellations, and see what case could be made against Evilutionists.
    May I remind you of this:
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Taylor View Post
    No doubt. Have you read the article by Stephen Jay Gould in which it appeared? No? I didn't think so.

    That passage, originally from one of his monthly essays in Natural History, was reprinted in his early collection Ever Since Darwin. It's a very engaging book by a man who devoted his life to evolutionary theory. I strongly recommend it.

    Do you see that ellipsis in the passage you quoted, right between the words "demolish" and "in fact"? Where the author of your creationist website inserted those three little dots, there were originally two paragraphs of additional material, including the observation that "By 1830, no serious scientific catastrophist believed that cataclysms had a supernatural cause or that the earth was 6,000 years old," and that "a belief in catastrophes does not dictate a 6,000-year-old earth."

    Why do you suppose your source (Creation Ministries International) left that material out of the discussion?

    The reason, of course, is that Creation Ministries enthusiastically endorses the very notion that "no serious scientific catastrophist believed" in 1830: that the cataclysms were of supernatural origin, and that the earth is 6,000 years old.

    Moreover, they are willing to lure credulous readers into thinking that an "important" comment by a researcher they call "one of the world's leading geologists" supports their point of view.

    Gould was an energetic supporter of evolutionary theory, and an untiring opponent of creationism. He often stuck up for catastrophism, but only in the context of a very, very old earth. To lift his words out of context, and use them in support of ideas he vigorously opposed throughout his life is, to put it gently, a very poor scholarly practice.
    Which lays it out in words of one syllable (ish)


    I have held off on the Old Red Sandstone, knowing of a similar layer in the Grand Canyon, that was interpreted as windblown desert dunes, but evidence emerged that it was indeed more likely that it was "marine" sediment - just like all the layers above and below it.
    I thought it likely that the same likely applies to the O.R.S.
    From your photos I was unable to make any judgement - and i did wonder how you expected me to - or indeed just what you saw in the photos that made it obvious to you it was desert dune rather than flood sediment ...

    anyway here is a quote:

    "For many years evolutionary geologists have interpreted these cross beds by comparing them with currently forming sand deposits — the sand dunes in deserts which are dominated by sand grains made up of the mineral quartz, and which have inclined internal sand beds. Thus it has been proposed that the Coconino Sandstone accumulated over thousands and thousands of years in an immense windy desert by migrating sand dunes, the cross beds forming on the down-wind sides of the dunes as sand was deposited there."

    from: https://creation.com/startling-evidence-for-noahs-flood

    as ever,

    frank

    ps. Thx for the QUOTE tip
    This is Devonian Old Red Sandstone. There is no way that could be laid down by water, it is a classic wind blown sand dune structure.


    This, from your link
    At Siccar Point, the underlying Silurian graywacke consists of turbidites, now vertically inclined, which were deposited catastrophically from underwater density flows running across the ocean floor. Hutton knew nothing of these remarkable processes. They were only discovered after analysing the 1929 Grand Banks earthquake on the edge of the continental shelf off Newfoundland. The overlying Devonian Old Red Sandstone at Siccar Point is composed of thick, cross-bedded strata indicating deposition from flowing water. From modern flume experiments we have learned much about the conditions that produce such features. Now we can estimate the direction of the paleocurrent and the depth of the water. The contact between the two sandstone deposits has been eroded flat. The immediate overlying layer consists of angular broken rocks, breccia, suggesting the erosion was by catastrophic processes. Thus the Siccar Point unconformity from beginning to end is a monument to catastrophe. It’s an icon of Noah’s Flood.
    is either incompetent or deliberately dishonest as it ignores the rest of the ORS deposits and the story that they tell. Further more the underlying layer (now standing vertical) are stratified, indicating many meters of thickness laid down in discrete periods over many thousands of years. You cannot get that structure from a single catastrophic event. Then it was solidified, turned on edge and eroded, before the ORS was laid down in another deposition sequence. Which of those two lots of sedimentary rock did your author say was Noah's Flood? He can't even tell a consistent story in one paragraph of text.
    Last edited by Peerie Maa; 12-09-2017 at 08:36 AM.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  29. #2374
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    786

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post

    May I remind you of this:

    Which lays it out in words of one syllable (ish)

    .
    read it

    responded

    progress it please (possible scenarios suggested)

  30. #2375
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    786

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post

    ........... the underlying layer (now standing vertical) are stratified, indicating many meters of thickness laid down in discrete periods over many thousands of years. You cannot get that structure from a single catastrophic event. Then it was solidified, turned on edge and eroded, before the ORS was laid down in another deposition sequence. .............
    evidence required for this assertion

    thx

    frank

  31. #2376
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    37,246

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    progress it please (possible scenarios suggested)
    Where to? The author used manipulative editing to make Gould say something Gould would never say.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  32. #2377
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    786

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    ................

    This is Devonian Old Red Sandstone. There is no way that could be laid down by water, it is a classic wind blown sand dune structure.

    ....................
    I posted a link about the Coconino formation of the Grand Canyon.

    it was similarly thought to be "wind-blown desert dune formation"

    the link https://creation.com/startling-evidence-for-noahs-flood advanced reasons to doubt that - and further show that it rather exhibited properties that were more consistent with being laid down by water flow.

    Figure 5. Schematic diagram showing the formation of cross beds during sand deposition by migration of underwater sand waves due to sustained water flow.

    I suggest that a similar thing possibly applies to the D.O.R.S. - but I have been unable so far to find authoritative comment to that effect.

    you may be correct in your assertion that it is aerial - but I have no way of judging (I asked you if you did) - nor do I know the relevance in this context. Note the Coconino sandstone is clearly sandwiched between formations accepted as marine, even fluvial.

    cordially,

    frank

  33. #2378
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    786

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Where to? The author used manipulative editing to make Gould say something Gould would never say.
    Nick, you surely are above this sort of carry on

    You are merely repeating the original assertion.

    that is sq. 1.

    I responded with a different view - sq. 2.

    there was some input then that did not advance any significant new argumentation IIRC

    I now have suggested a possible means of testing and resolving the difference of opinions - sq. 3.

    So, "Where to?" - sq. 4.! (which may mean following my suggested scenarios, or pointing to an analogous situation where such was carried out, or suggesting alternates etc)

    not sq. 1. again

    thankyou,

    frank

  34. #2379
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    37,246

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    I posted a link about the Coconino formation of the Grand Canyon.

    it was similarly thought to be "wind-blown desert dune formation"

    the link https://creation.com/startling-evidence-for-noahs-flood advanced reasons to doubt that - and further show that it rather exhibited properties that were more consistent with being laid down by water flow.

    Figure 5. Schematic diagram showing the formation of cross beds during sand deposition by migration of underwater sand waves due to sustained water flow.

    I suggest that a similar thing possibly applies to the D.O.R.S. - but I have been unable so far to find authoritative comment to that effect.

    you may be correct in your assertion that it is aerial - but I have no way of judging (I asked you if you did) - nor do I know the relevance in this context. Note the Coconino sandstone is clearly sandwiched between formations accepted as marine, even fluvial.

    cordially,

    frank
    Devonian ORS is not "thought to be" it is windblown sand as it would seem is Coconino Sandstone as quoted in Wikki
    typically buff to white in color. It consists primarily of fine well sorted quartz grains, with minor amounts of potassium feldspar grains deposited by eolian processes (wind-deposited) approximately 260 million years ago. Several structural features such as ripple marks, sand dune deposits, rain patches, slump marks, and fossil tracks are not only well preserved within the formation, but also contribute evidence of its eolian origin
    Coconino Sandstone (Lower Permian)—Tan to white, cliff-forming, fine-grained, wellsorted, cross-bedded quartz sandstone. Contains large-scale, high-angle, planar cross-bedded sandstone sets that average about 35 ft (11 m) thick. Locally includes poorly preserved fossil tracks and low-relief wind ripple marks on crossbedded planar sandstone surfaces. Lower 5–20 ft (2–6 m) is intertongued, thinbedded, partly calcareous, flat-bedded sandstone of Seligman Member of Toroweap Formation. Unconformable contact with underlying Hermit Formation is sharp planar, with relief generally less than 3 ft (1 m) but locally as much as 8 ft (2.5 m). Desiccation cracks in the Hermit, as much as 2 ft (0.05 m) wide and 12 ft (4 m) deep, are filled with tan sandstone of the Toroweap or Coconino, mainly in eastern third of map area. Thickness of the Coconino decreases east to west, whereas Brady Canyon and Seligman Members of Toroweap Formation increase proportionally in thickness. Forms a 500-ft (154-
    m) thick cliff in southeast corner of map area, thinning northward to about 350 ft (122 m) and westward to about 150 ft (45 m) at western edge of map area.
    from https://3dparks.wr.usgs.gov/colorado...n/coconino.htm
    and
    Within the dunes of wind-blown quartz sand of the Coconino Sandstone, tracks of ancient animals are the most common fossils. Even though no bones have been found, these tracks contain an abundance of information about the animals that made them. Scorpions, millipedes, isopods, spiders, and mammal-like reptiles once scurried over these dunes. Their footprints tell the stories of running or walking across the sand, traveling up or down the dunes, whether the animal dragged its tail, how big the animal may have been based on its stride length, whether it had an upright or sprawling posture, and what kind of animals shared these dunes.
    with photos, I lurrrve photos

    Chelichnus track fossils from a mammal-like reptile found in the Coconino Sandstone.
    from https://www.nps.gov/grca/learn/natur...P_JUMP_2241953

    Now why did your source get that sooooo wrong?
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  35. #2380
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    37,246

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    And there is this: http://www2.asa3.org/archive/ASA/199805/0099.html
    I wasn't able to find Visher's book but published descriptions of sand
    waves in other texts seem to clearly show that they are NOT what is seen
    in the Coconino. Why? Because as you say below, "the average slope of
    Coconino Sandstone cross beds is about 25 degrees from the horizontal" and
    sand waves have much shallower slopes
    . As Allen, 1982 (reference B below
    so Austin should have known about this comment) writes:

    "We cannot emphasize too strongly that sand waves possess low to mild
    slopes ... it is clear that the sides of the waves rarely dip more steeply
    than 10 degress overall and can slope as little as 1 degree ..."

    Allen, John R.L. 1982. Sedimentary Structures: Their Character and
    Physical Basis. Volume I. Developments in Sedimentology 30A. Elsevier,
    Amsterdam.

    So my answer to your comment is two fold. Yes, Virginia, there are such
    things as submarine sand dunes but they have a totally different character
    than the cross bedding we see in the Coconino which is more consistent with
    desert dunes. Secondly, one cannot consider things in isolation since there
    is abundant additional evidence to consider the Coconino to be a terrestrial
    deposit (tetrapod trackways, raindrop impressions, etc.).
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •