HGL's F.B. writings: Debate on Geology ·
Creation vs. Evolution: 4.5 Billion Years Worth of Nuclear Decay, Before the End of Day Three? ·
Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: Continuing debate with David C. Campbell on YEC, OE, Palaeontology ·
Continued Debate with David C. Campbell ·
Mr. Campbell is Back
FB mail exchange with David C. Campbell
- Friday 22:20,
- 6.IX.2024
- Vous avez envoyé
- Good day!
Are you a palaeontologist?
If so, one Jeffrey (presumably Greenberg sent me to you:
Debate on Geology
https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2024/09/debate-on-geology.html
- LD 20:47,
- 8.IX.2024
- David C. Campbell
- Yes, I am a paleontologist. My research emphasizes mollusks, with most experience in the southeastern US. However, having worked in museums and done plenty of reading, I am familiar with global paleontology. As with all other areas of geology, paleontology clearly contradicts the claims of modern young-earth creationism.
- Monday 21:30,
- 9.IX.2024
- Vous avez envoyé
- OK.
One YEC which I don't know how Palaeontology is supposed to contradict, is this.
During the Flood, most bigger fossils that are recognisable (like a T Rex or a Procynosuchus delaharpeae looking like a T Rex or a Procynosuchus delaharpeae) would have been buried in situ.
This means, land fauna would have been buried on the places that were land in pre-Flood times. As to aquatic fauna, it could be buried above land, if floating into an area during the Flood before getting killed, but they could not be below land fauna, and they could not alternative with land fauna.
Land fauna being on the single land surface could not have several levels of itself, for instance, no Procynosuchus delaharpeae from the Permian straight below a T Rex from the Jurassic.
Exactly where on earth do we find land fauna contradicting this prediction?
- Tuesday 15:05
- 10.IX.2024
- David C. Campbell
- Land or freshwater and ocean fauna alternate in many parts of the world. Historically, the classic example is the Paris Basin, surveyed by Cuvier and Brongniart in the late 1700's. But most coastal parts of the world have some alternation between land and ocean deposits. For example, all of Florida has oceanic rock, with patches of later land deposits, and sometimes back and forth is preserved. The midwestern US has Paleozoic ocean rocks with Pleistocene land faunas. Much of the classic western North American area for dinosaurs and large land mammals has some alternation of ocean and land deposits, with land deposits above ocean. Occasional land animals wash out into the ocean as well.
Likewise, many areas have multiple layers of land and freshwater faunas, one above another. The Triassic to Jurassic rift basins along the eastern US have multiple layers of land deposits. Some have younger land and ocean layers alternating above them. Many coal deposits have many layers of land and freshwater deposits associated with them. The Badlands area of South Dakota has multiple land layers, as do the Mesozoic and early Cenozoic land deposits in areas famous for dinosaurs in the western US. It is actually extremely common to have marine sedimentary rocks below terrestrial sedimentary rocks.
- Thursday 02:31,
- 12.IX.2024
- Vous avez envoyé
- "Many coal deposits have many layers of land and freshwater deposits associated with them."
Could this be because floating log mats are identified as land layers when they became coal?
Obviously, even if coal is floating log mats in the Flood, it won't be just the logs, it will be some other land biota along with it ... or did I misunderstand what you were saying?
But I'd appreciate if you dropped "many" and concentrated on one clear example.
"The Triassic to Jurassic rift basins along the eastern US have multiple layers of land deposits. Some have younger land and ocean layers alternating above them."
Alternating at what angle, and how many of the land layers include actual land vertebrate fauna?
Again, one clear example is more instructive than a broad range of applications to a sweeping statement.
"It is actually extremely common to have marine sedimentary rocks below terrestrial sedimentary rocks."
In how many cases does this involve actual vertebrate fauna in each layer and this at angles, like more vertical than 45° ideally?
- Friday 00:14
- 13.IX.2024
- David C. Campbell
- No, the floating mat model is not compatible either with flood geology or actual geological evidence. Flood geology implies violently catastrophic flooding which would melt the earth, which is not compatible with floating mats with trees and land animals. Also, coal seams commonly do have roots extanding into the ground under them; although some of the plant material moved around some (such as washing into the ocean), much coal shows ample evidence of being depostied in place.
Vertebrate faunas are present in multiple layers on top of each other in many parts of the world. Classic examples include the Badlands of South Dakota and the Jurassic to early Cenozoic layers of the prime dinosaur-hunting regions of the western US and Canada. In these areas, often they layers are largley flat; however, they are extremely tilted in places such as along the front of the Rockies in central Colorado.
- Friday 13:21
- 13.IX.2024
- Vous avez envoyé
- "Flood geology implies violently catastrophic flooding which would melt the earth,"
Alleged consequence =/= obvious implication.
"Also, coal seams commonly do have roots extanding into the ground under them;"
A log mat which was uprooted from original place would probably get some roots into as yet soft mud during the Flood.
"although some of the plant material moved around some (such as washing into the ocean), much coal shows ample evidence of being depostied in place."
How would you know the difference between deposition in place and deposition after floating around as a log mat?
"Vertebrate faunas are present in multiple layers on top of each other in many parts of the world."
Many parts of the world is not one place.
"Classic examples include the Badlands of South Dakota"
What exact place there involves digging down and finding a "later-period" fossil, and digging further down and finding an "earlier-period" fossil? Specifically land vertebrate.
Land non-vertebrates are often small enough to remain intact even if not deposited in situ and aquatic vertebrates we would expect several layers on top of each other, we would expect for instance sharks over trilobites and Mosasaurs or whales over sharks. So, two of more layers of land vertebrates. On top of each other.
"In these areas, often they layers are largley flat;"
I'm specifically looking for flat, non-tilted layers. The lower discovery through further digging.
"however, they are extremely tilted in places such as along the front of the Rockies in central Colorado."
Apart from the fact I wasn't looking for tilted, how would you diagnose layers as tilted in those parts?
- Friday 23:41
- 13.IX.2024
- David C. Campbell
- The modern creation science movement originated in the mid-1800s, with the misapplication of “Enlightenment” bias to the Bible and claiming that the Bible had to be talking about science to be true. It reflects a misinterpretation of selected verses rather than a thorough effort to understand either Scripture or creation. Throughout the early church and medieval times, various ideas about the age of the earth were discussed in the church. As geologic study began to look at evidence for the age of the earth in the mid-1600’s, it gradually became more and more obvious that immense amounts of time were required to explain what was observed. This was not generally seen as a problem for the Bible. The “history” claimed by atheists and young-earthers is not true.
"Flood geology implies violently catastrophic flooding which would melt the earth," Alleged consequence =/= obvious implication.
In order to have all of the plate tectonic motion recorded in the geological record fitting into a single year, the heat required would melt the earth. The energy required to supply or remove enough water to flood the earth would produce enough heat to melt the earth. Speeding up radiometric decay as advocated in the RATE project would produce enough heat to melt the earth (which they admit but ignore). These are not alleged consequences. But the implications are indeed obvious.
“ "Also, coal seams commonly do have roots extanding into the ground under them;" A log mat which was uprooted from original place would probably get some roots into as yet soft mud during the Flood. “
First, you need to have a coherent model for the Flood and demonstrate what would actually happen under those circumstances rather than claiming that it could do anything you want it to. If the continents are zipping around at 45 mph, log mats don’t have a chance. If the flood is calm enough to have a mat, you can’t have all the violent geologic events squeezed into a short period of time. Second, many coal layers have soil layers with extensive evidence of roots under them, not merely the occasional root that could be squashed into them after deposition. Yes, it is possible to tell the difference. You also need to consider whether you are applying the same standard of proof to the young-earth claims as you are to honest biblical old-earth geology.
“Many parts of the world is not one place. “ No, it’s lots of places. And each one has the pattern that you are claiming doesn’t exist.
“"Classic examples include the Badlands of South Dakota" What exact place there involves digging down and finding a "later-period" fossil, and digging further down and finding an "earlier-period" fossil? Specifically land vertebrate. Land non-vertebrates are often small enough to remain intact even if not deposited in situ and aquatic vertebrates we would expect several layers on top of each other, we would expect for instance sharks over trilobites and Mosasaurs or whales over sharks. So, two of more layers of land vertebrates. On top of each other. “
Multiple layers of land vertebrates are found throughout the upper western Great Plains regions. On top of each other. https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/0035/pdf/of03-35.pdf is an overview of the stratigraphy at Badlands National Park. The marine Pierre Shale and Fox Hills Formation (with major changes in the types of fossils found in them as you go up through the layers) are overlain by multiple layers of land and freshwater deposits with many land vertebrates.
Further west (much of eastern Montana, for example), the Judith River Formation, a famous dinosaur-bearing layer, is under the Bearpaw marine deposit, followed by more dinosaurs in the terrestrial Hell Creek Formation.
“"In these areas, often they layers are largley flat;" I'm specifically looking for flat, non-tilted layers. The lower discovery through further digging. "however, they are extremely tilted in places such as along the front of the Rockies in central Colorado." Apart from the fact I wasn't looking for tilted, how would you diagnose layers as tilted in those parts?”
You mentioned tilted in your previous post. Given that dinosaurs did not simply walk up a steep muddy slope, the tilting of the layers is quite apparent at Dinosaur Ridge (https://dinoridge.org/visit-dinosaur-ridge/dinosaur-ridge-trail/ ). Also, the ridge has Jurassic land vertebrate layers overlain by Cretaceous land layers with the trackways.
- Saturday 14:24
- Feast of Holy Cross
- 14.IX.2024
- Vous avez envoyé
- History of ideas is closer to my field than to yours.
"The modern creation science movement originated in the mid-1800s, with the misapplication of “Enlightenment” bias to the Bible and claiming that the Bible had to be talking about science to be true."
In fact, no such thing.
"It reflects a misinterpretation of selected verses rather than a thorough effort to understand either Scripture or creation. Throughout the early church and medieval times, various ideas about the age of the earth were discussed in the church."
Yes, whether LXX or Vulgate was the better key to Genesis 5 and 11. Whether the creation days were 168 hours or just one (nano-)second, possibly followed by gestation time. How to count the years in between Exodus and Temple. How many years did the kingdom of Judah last. Did Jesus come in Daniel's 63rd of 61st week. How long after the captivity was the start of the weeks. But NOT wether the days could be longer periods, that's a misreading for them corresponding to longer periods after Adam sinned (and yes, Jesus came and remade man in the sixth of these).
"As geologic study began to look at evidence for the age of the earth in the mid-1600’s, it gradually became more and more obvious that immense amounts of time were required to explain what was observed."
Steno was a Flood geologist. James Hutton was a Deist, and he wrote on Siccar point in 1788.
"This was not generally seen as a problem for the Bible. The “history” claimed by atheists and young-earthers is not true."
About Protestantism. All through the 19th C. from Lyell to the 1890's, we Catholics defended Young Earth Creationism (as the traditional doctrine), Day-Age AND Gap Theories. All pious Catholics agreed that the history of man at least was the Biblical history from Adam on, that Abraham lived some time between 2000 to 3000 + (perhaps a bit beyond that, but not by too much) after Creation of man. Carbon dating now puts this in conflict with any Old Earth theory, but in a YEC setting, with atmosphere being young, this is still feasible.
I do not have this history from Atheists or from YEC but from the article Hexaëmeron by the Jesuit Mangenot in 1920, in Paris, he rejected all three and introduced sth very close to Framework Hypothesis.
"In order to have all of the plate tectonic motion recorded in the geological record fitting into a single year, the heat required would melt the earth."
I suppose you mean things like motion from Pangaea and Gondwana? Because I'd dispute that this was the actual configuration of continents prior to the Flood. I would also dispute that the tectonic motion ceased just after the Flood, I would on the contrary say significant motion continued up to Babel times (350 to 401 after the Flood).
Plus, the plates would anyway be gliding over molten magma. Hence my underlining that the consequence is alleged.
"Speeding up radiometric decay as advocated in the RATE project would produce enough heat to melt the earth (which they admit but ignore)."
Not if it was limited to certain quantities of Uranium. And even then I'd extend the "quicker process" far beyond the single year.
"an overview of the stratigraphy at Badlands National Park."
Can't open it in this library.
"the Judith River Formation, a famous dinosaur-bearing layer, is under the Bearpaw marine deposit, followed by more dinosaurs in the terrestrial Hell Creek Formation."
I know enough about Hell Creek to know that a Formation is not a place, nor is it restricted to a place.
"You mentioned tilted in your previous post."
I think you misunderstood sth else.
// In how many cases does this involve actual vertebrate fauna in each layer and this at angles, like more vertical than 45° ideally? //
I didn't mean the verticality within a single layer (which if so would be very tilted). I meant verticality between the layers, so as to exclude that the "different layers" are biotopes side by side. I mean, if you dig down one metre and find a Stegosaur, and then you find a Dimetrodon ten metres below the Stegosaur, I would like the Dimetrodon to be straight under the Stegosaur, not further away from the vertical line than ten metres.
"Also, the ridge has Jurassic land vertebrate layers overlain by Cretaceous land layers with the trackways."
Are the Cretaceous layers also involving land vertebrates? Or does "trackways" just mean footprints?
- Monday 23:34
- 16.IX.2024
- David C. Campbell
- Not just the difference between the LXX and Masoretic. Many Christians advocated the idea that creation was eternal, yet created; they thought that God as Creator needed a corresponding creation. Others thought that the time of creation was a finite, but vast, time back into the past, with no clear evidence of the date. Others thought that the time since the days of Genesis 1 through 2:3 was fairly completely accounted for in Scripture, but within that there were some who thought that the chaos of Genesis 1:2 might have lasted for a noticeable amount of time before the 7 days and some who did not. The Fourth Lateran Council rejected the idea of a co-eternal creation, though that did not prevent people from continuing to talk about the idea, but the other options remained within the range of western orthodoxy. Ivano Dal Prete’s On the Edge of Eternity. The Antiquity of the Earth in Medieval and Early Modern Europe, Oxford University Press, 2022 goes into detail with many examples of ancient earth ideas in pre-modern Europe.
Steno did not hold to modern Flood Geology. But he did not follow up beyond his initial publications. A wide range of workers studied geology in the late 1600’s through the later 1700’s, building on Steno’s (and others’) ideas. For example, one priest noted that the lava flow from the roughly 200-year old flow on Mount Etna still looked pretty fresh. But digging for a well found a series of seven layers where a lava flow had covered soil that had weathered from an older flow. He guessed that each of those must have taken at least a couple thousand years. And the volcano is on top of some rather young geologic layers. Another priest objected to this suggestion. The papal authorities investigated, found that the old-earther was right, and formally suppressed the claims of the young-earther in the latest 1700’s.
Carbon dating supports a biblical timeline. Before Abraham, there is not enough detail to definitely say that particular archaeological remains match with particular parts of the Bible. But Abraham’s world is recognizably early second millennium BC in the Near East. Carbon dating confirms that somebody burned down impressive buildings in the late 900’s BC – Pharoah Shishak raiding Rehoboam and Jeroboam (and bragging about it in hieroglyphics), that Hezekiah’s tunnel was built in Hezekiah’s time, etc. While demonstrating that certain young-earth claims about changing decay rates are untrue, this doesn’t say much else about age of the earth before Abraham.
“Because I'd dispute that this was the actual configuration of continents prior to the Flood. I would also dispute that the tectonic motion ceased just after the Flood, I would on the contrary say significant motion continued up to Babel times (350 to 401 after the Flood).”
The evidence of past plate motion is based on a wide range of evidence, with a series of multiple supercontinents; Pangea being the most recent. No, moving continents on magma does not speed them up enough to make a young-earth view possible. Besides, cooling that magma in a few thousand years doesn’t work. You do not have any valid geological reason to dispute that was the configuration of the continents; you are simply rejecting it because it conflicts with young-earth claims. You need to critically examine all the evidence. Basic laws of thermodynamics, the ones that young-earthers like to claim pose challenges for evolution, are what tell us that creation science models would melt the earth. Dismissing all the evidence as alleged does not make it sound like you are seriously considering it.
"Speeding up radiometric decay as advocated in the RATE project would produce enough heat to melt the earth (which they admit but ignore)." Not if it was limited to certain quantities of Uranium. And even then I'd extend the "quicker process" far beyond the single year.
Speeding up radiometric decay alters very basic laws of physics. Atoms can’t exist if you change the laws. You can’t just play around with the numbers because you want them to fit a young earth; you have to seriously examine what the actual consequences would be. There’s more thorium than uranium around, as well as plenty of potassium-40 and hundreds of other radioactive isotopes. All of the isotopes that last long enough to give any information about the age of the earth point to ages older than is compatible with young-earth claims.
“I know enough about Hell Creek to know that a Formation is not a place, nor is it restricted to a place.” No, it is found in lots of places. Where the next layer down, the Bearpaw, is also exposed, the one underneath is marine and the Hell Creek has land fauna. That’s what you said shouldn’t exist in a flood model. You need to recognize that the geologic record does clearly show land deposits on top of ocean deposits and different land deposits on top of other land deposits, and either come up with a revised flood model or admit that you don’t currently have a good model. How could your flood produce layers with totally different marine life, one layer after another? You need to develop specific models, see if they work, and make corrections.
Right at Dinosaur Ridge, the Stegosaurus bones and other Jurassic fossils (including some footprints) are under a layer with Cretaceous footprints. Elsewhere you can find Cretaceous bones in the layers above the Jurassic bones, but I don’t know if there are Cretaceous bones right at Dinosaur Ridge.
- Tuesday 15:28
- 17.IX.2024
- Vous avez envoyé
- I have not read the book by Ivano Dal
"Many Christians advocated the idea that creation was eternal, yet created; they thought that God as Creator needed a corresponding creation."
Wait, are we talking Christians in general or Christians of the type considered authoritative by Catholics as in Church Fathers, Doctors and at least saints?
Averroism was condemned by Tempier as much as it was refuted by St. Thomas.
"Others thought that the time of creation was a finite, but vast, time back into the past, with no clear evidence of the date."
I've heard a rumour Jerome thought this about spiritual creatures, but have no trace of this applying to material creation.
"Others thought that the time since the days of Genesis 1 through 2:3 was fairly completely accounted for in Scripture, but within that there were some who thought that the chaos of Genesis 1:2 might have lasted for a noticeable amount of time before the 7 days and some who did not."
From modern Geology this is the position of one school in three. Cardinal Wiseman.
"The Fourth Lateran Council rejected the idea of a co-eternal creation, though that did not prevent people from continuing to talk about the idea, but the other options remained within the range of western orthodoxy."
I defy you to prove Gap Theory so ... if you have the book, you'll know what authors he spoke of.
"Steno did not hold to modern Flood Geology. But he did not follow up beyond his initial publications."
He had other fish to fry, getting Lutherans of Northern Europe back into the Catholic Church and dying from hardships on the road.
"A wide range of workers studied geology in the late 1600’s through the later 1700’s, building on Steno’s (and others’) ideas. For example, one priest noted that the lava flow from the roughly 200-year old flow on Mount Etna still looked pretty fresh. But digging for a well found a series of seven layers where a lava flow had covered soil that had weathered from an older flow. He guessed that each of those must have taken at least a couple thousand years. And the volcano is on top of some rather young geologic layers. Another priest objected to this suggestion. The papal authorities investigated, found that the old-earther was right, and formally suppressed the claims of the young-earther in the latest 1700’s."
Names would be helpful. Late 1700's?
"Carbon dating supports a biblical timeline. Before Abraham, there is not enough detail to definitely say that particular archaeological remains match with particular parts of the Bible. But Abraham’s world is recognizably early second millennium BC in the Near East."
Genesis 14 is recognisably carbon dated to 3500 BC.
The fact that Abraham's pharao was willing to even talk of Abraham's God suggests that he was a very early one, well before Pharaos and Khemetic priests became a very well oiled team overall (with some subteams competing).
"Carbon dating confirms that somebody burned down impressive buildings in the late 900’s BC"
I consider carbon dating reached the point of coincidence between real dates and dated dates at around the Trojan War, 1180 BC.
"The evidence of past plate motion is based on a wide range of evidence, with a series of multiple supercontinents; Pangea being the most recent."
Your sentence conflates evidence and explanation. These are opposite ends of the spectrum.
"No, moving continents on magma does not speed them up enough to make a young-earth view possible."
I have your word for it ... no calculation, however.
1) Moving on magma
2) Moving far less.
I have not seen calculations showing the problem persists.
"Besides, cooling that magma in a few thousand years doesn’t work."
I don't think you followed my proposal at all. I'm far from saying it has cooled.
"You do not have any valid geological reason to dispute that was the configuration of the continents; you are simply rejecting it because it conflicts with young-earth claims."
Or those of Bible and Tradition .... somewhat weightier than I.
"critically examine all the evidence. Basic laws ... would melt the earth ... all the evidence"
Extremely big talk. Exactly zero calculations, even such I'd find hard to follow.
"does not make it sound like you are seriously considering it."
I reserve my right to consider things flippantly, if it suits me. Especially if you are flippant enough to claim calculations you refuse to show.
"Speeding up radiometric decay alters very basic laws of physics. Atoms can’t exist if you change the laws."
I think there are quite a few known factors that can speed up decay without altering the laws of physics.
"you have to seriously examine what the actual consequences would be."
I did that with carbon 14 after hearing that kind of big claims about a speeded carbon 14 production nuke frying vertebrate life. In the end it was the Evolution side that gave up:
Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Other Check on Carbon Buildup
Thursday 23 November 2017, Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 09:23
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2017/11/other-check-on-carbon-buildup.html
"There’s more thorium than uranium around,"
Thorium - Lead does perhaps not need Speeded up decay, could be the Lead that was there to start with (no Thorium in Zircons)
"as well as plenty of potassium-40 and hundreds of other radioactive isotopes."
How much of the argon in potassium argon dating has been verified as argon 40? I consider argon trapped from the air to be a clear option.
"All of the isotopes that last long enough to give any information about the age of the earth point to ages older than is compatible with young-earth claims."
I consider genealogies better suited than isotopes to tell us the age of the Earth, like Genesis 5 and 11.
You have not offered a total amount of what is there and what was there before decay, I think it's hard to pinpoint one.
"Where the next layer down, the Bearpaw, is also exposed, the one underneath is marine and the Hell Creek has land fauna. That’s what you said shouldn’t exist in a flood model."
I am not speaking of layers in lots of places. I am speaking of lots of layers in a place, each with palaeofauna. What location do you find Hell Creek on top, dig further down and find Bearpaw?
If it's just a matter of walking, we could be tracing a pre-Flood coastline.
"How could your flood produce layers with totally different marine life, one layer after another?"
For Grand Canyon, I already have a model. Invertebrates were swept about in diverse parts of the Flood and from diverse sources that then deposited on top of each other.
"Right at Dinosaur Ridge, the Stegosaurus bones and other Jurassic fossils (including some footprints) are under a layer with Cretaceous footprints."
I'll take the words at max value. One surge of the Flood buried the Stegosaur. Then in shallow waters a Cretaceous creature tried wading on top of the mud ...
"Elsewhere you can find Cretaceous bones in the layers above the Jurassic bones, but I don’t know if there are Cretaceous bones right at Dinosaur Ridge."
Where would be helpful.
One more:
"Steno did not hold to modern Flood Geology."
Neither did the author of Gletscher oder Sintflut. A Catholic priest.
Modern Flood Geologists do admit there was an Ice Age.
- Wednesday 16:43
- 18.IX.2024
- David C. Campbell
- But not honestly. The geologic record indicates mutliple ice ages through geologic time, and multiple advances and retreats of ice during the most recent one. In the YEC ice age, glaciers advanced from Greenland to Kansas and retreated back within a few hundred years. It's ridiculous and not compatible with the geological evidence. Rather, it's merely an effort to keep fooling people even if they've heard of an ice age.
- Thursday 03:25
- 19.IX.2024
- Vous avez envoyé
- If I were to say such a thing about Evolutionists, perhaps even AronRa who probably introduced the heat problem, I'd be stamped right away as a conspiracy theorist.
"The geologic record indicates"
You mean the geologic remains are compatible with being interpreted as ...
"In the YEC ice age, glaciers advanced from Greenland to Kansas and retreated back within a few hundred years. It's ridiculous"
Not if there were drastic changes in temperature.
I'd say the weather was cooled by ionising particles results of the same increase in cosmic radiation that also decreased lifespans and that also increased the carbon 14 content. This was at its most intense in the Ice Age, reaching production levels of C-14 20 times as fast as now.
By the Trojan War, 1779 years after the Flood, the pmC was up at 100 for the first time in world history.
"and not compatible with the geological evidence."
Would you mind telling me what geologic evidence clearly shows that Riss and Würm were different periods?
I note that you have (at least for the moment) left superposition of land vertebrate faunas aside ...
- Thursday 23:07
- 19.IX.2024
- David C. Campbell
- Well, you weren't listening on the superposition of land faunas. There's Triassic land faunas on top of Permian in South Africa, for example. At Tar Heel, NC, there's a layer with Cretaceous land plants and occasional dinosaur material under multiple different marine layers, followed by a layer with land mammal bones. The Triassic basins in central North Carolina have a series of three formations with assorted land vertebrates, one on top of the other.
For the Pleistocene ice ages, there are many places where traces of one ice age is overlain by another, demonstrating that they were separate glacial intervals. Likewise, we have deposits that reflect the up and down of sea level as glaciers melt and grow. This also affects the ratios of 18Oto 16O, which can be traced back and forth through time. The youngest glacial advance has meaningful 14C dates associated with it; the others are all to background. The patterns of glaciers advancing and retreating match the Milankovitch cycles in Earth's orbit, each cycle taking from about 20,000 to 100,000 years. (We can see how fast each is changing today to calculate the cycle lengths).
No, changing temperature fast enough to send glaciers back and forth from Greenland to Kansas and back in 500 years is not reasonable. If you want to be credible, examine your models, rather uncritically accepting anything young-earth and inventing bad excuses to ignore the evidence. An honest young-earth position has to admit to problems.
- Friday 06:01
- 20.IX.2024
- Vous avez envoyé
- "Well, you weren't listening on the superposition of land faunas."
I totally was. YOU are the one who weren't listening to my actual question.
I specified, I think more than once, that in order for me to admit that X is above Y, I don't ask whether the wharves surrounding X get above the wharves surrounding Y at some horizontal point between X and Y as you walk from X to Y.
In order for me to admit that X is above Y, I want you to dig a whole that get's down to X and a little deeper down gets to Y. The angle in you dig down between the layers should ideally not exceed 45 °.
"There's Triassic land faunas on top of Permian in South Africa, for example."
No, there ain't no such thing. I actually CHECKED.
"At Tar Heel, NC, there's a layer with Cretaceous land plants and occasional dinosaur material under multiple different marine layers, followed by a layer with land mammal bones."
In that case, the land mammal bones could be a post-Flood layer. The marine layers flooded the land plants and dino material before getting buried in mud themselves.
It could also be it was marine in pre-Flood times if the dino material is very fragmentary.
"For the Pleistocene ice ages, there are many places where traces of one ice age is overlain by another, demonstrating that they were separate glacial intervals."
1) How would that be diagnosed in the terrain?
2) How would you tell the difference between a progression, regression and reprogression of an ice cap at millions and at decades of a distance? The one radio-method that actually is relatively giving dates the right order is lacking for all except the last ice age, and the non-carbon methods one could use for Riss are totally moot.
"The youngest glacial advance has meaningful [C-14] C dates associated with it; the others are all to background."
Well, that would be the post-Flood ice age. In my view, between 2957 BC and 2607 BC when the Younger Dryas ended. The carbon dates would be 39,000 BP respectively 9500 BC
"(We can see how fast each is changing today to calculate the cycle lengths)."
Except this is what one would call an extrapolation from the present and into a non-extant past. The Milankovich point that you associate with the Last Ice Age would be before Creation, and the real reason is something else.
"No, changing temperature fast enough to send glaciers back and forth from Greenland to Kansas and back in 500 years is not reasonable."
In 350 years on my view.
When the production of C-14 was 20 times faster than today how much would that change temperatures due to ionising particles?
During the Little Ice Age (c. 1300 to 1800 AD), C-14 production was faster than today, and that only so much that raw carbon dates are about a century off.
"If you want to be credible, examine your models, rather uncritically accepting anything young-earth"
If you imagine I'm "uncritically accepting" and "not examining" the models proposed by the big YEC organisations, you are deluded. If you had said this face to face to me, I'd probably have hit you in the face and called you "gubbfan" in Swedish. You are an old man, possibly attained by sclerosis or very early Alzheimer since you UNCRITICALLY take over this view of me from other men YOUR generation. When I was a child, I could reasonably expect that once I was 20, I'd be treated as an adult. Today, I'm treated as an immature teen when I am 56, by people who are probably above 70, maybe 80, and enjoy the power of infantilising others that their social leverage can give them. Why didn't you make a quiverfull instead of trying to treat other people's sons like your own?
What the likes of YOU find credible is without relevance to me. YOU are not credible about South Africa. Did you really miss my link in response to Jeff Greenberg about my correspondence with South Africa?
Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Contacting Karoo about superposition of layers and fossils
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2015/06/contacting-karoo-about-superposition-of.html
If you wish to mentor people, do so with people who are still immature enough to want a mentor and also gullible enough to trust you.
"and inventing bad excuses to ignore the evidence."
I'm not ignoring any evidence. I simply not subscribing to your conclusions about it. Often enough presented without your offering even a small resumé about what the evidence (the factors in the ground, for instance) is.
"An honest young-earth position has to admit to problems."
Admitting to problems and admitting I have sinned have one thing in common. The problems for YEC as I see them, and the sins I have committed as I see them, may not be the problems you wish to present me, and not be the sins some Evangelicals would credit me with.
I sent him a link to this, somewhat belatedly, he responded, not sure if one should say "graciously" given I had expressed a desire to punch him, or very ungraciously, given he continues the provication. Upcoming on 3.X, day of St. Therese of the Child Jesus and of the Holy Face.
