Subject: Robert, don't be daft
From: S Krueger
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 20:46:38 GMT
In article <01bba3f6$c7d18520$446860cc@dial.inetnebr.com> Robert D.
Brown, pelorus@ltec.net writes:
>The task of removing a starched tablecloth from
>> under a table full of dishes by pushing on the cloth is
>> comparable in difficulty to the task of explaining how to
>> abruptly subduct a large amount of oceanic lithosphere
>> without crumpling it.
>
>Now, place several miles of seawater over the tablecloth/oceanic crust and
>hit it with the abrupt force of an asteroid moving 7-30 km/sec. That will
>shear any solid links between the undersurface of the basalt and the rock
>forming the Moho. Lastly, have water move radially away from the impact
>site, creating frictional forces that cause the plate to move in the same
>direction. The oceanic crust will subduct under the continental plates
>surrounding the oceanic basin, leaving major portions of the oceanic crust
>and its attached seafloor sediments "intact", particularly as the distance
>from the impact site extends into the thousands of kilometers. These
>effects, carried out over the span of time immediately following an OCEANIC
>impact:
>
>(1) Generate mountains (fractures) on the atmospheric surfaces of the
>continental plates where the vectorial shock vector punches up from below;
>
>(2) Deposit huge sedimentary strata on the continental structures; and
>
>(3) Cause an ice age because of the blasting of vaporized (e.g.
>"salt-free") seawater into Earth's cold stratosphere. The salt comes down
>first (please think of Gaussian distributions), followed by the water,
>which rains down as snow and ice.
>
>
>RDB
Robert,
It's posters like you who make me wish my reader had kill files. Your
repeated posts on "impact orogeny" are just plain daft and your theory of
a K/T boundary impact creating Hawaii and the circum-Pacific mountain
ranges is so goofy that any 1st year geology student could probably
refute it with several lines of evidence.
As for the post above, it compounds your previous idiocy with even
greater idiocy. For example:
- There is no evidence for an impact in the middle of the Pacific at the
K/T boundary. There are numerous ODP and DSDP holes drilled around both
the current position of Hawaii and its paleo-position at 65 Ma, and in
all of these holes there is a conformable section of Tertiary strata
overlying Cretaceous through Jurassic strata. No deformational event
occurred in the Pacific at that time. The pattern of magnetic stripes on
the seafloor has been mapped in detail and shows no evidence for
disruption since the age of the oldest crust, which is more than 200 Ma
in age.
- The mechanical behavior of materials is a function of the rate at which
deformation occurs. In cases of rapid deformation (minutes versus
millions of years) geologic materials shatter like glass, rather than
behaving in the plate-like fashion you describe. Even if you could
suddenly shove hundreds of miles of oceanic crust beneath the continental
margins, there should be a massive isostatic uplift event, but no such
event is evident in the geological record. The K/T boundary age is no
more unusual in the record of deformation of the circum-Pacific mountains
than any other date in the last billion years or so. T suggest an earth
shattering reorganization of the Pacific basin at that time defies all
basic field data.
- Impact craters demonstrate that the bulk of the kinetic energy of an
impactor is converted to heat, and the forces which result from the
impact are predominantly directed upwards, not outwards. Basic physics
should tell you that the kinds of energy required to lift great slabs of
oceanic crust and displace them hundreds of kilometers laterally are
simply beyond the range of likely impact energy. That amount of impact
energy would, instead, create an enormous hole in the upper mantle, an
event for which there is no evidence.
- You argue that the event should "deposit huge sedimentary strata on the
continental structures". It didn't. Look at any good cross section
through any of the circum-Pacific mountain ranges, and their associated
flanking basins, and you will see that there is no sudden increase in
tectonic activity or sedimentation at the K/T boundary.
- You state that the K/T event should "cause an ice age because of the
blasting of vaporized seawater into Earth's cold stratosphere". It
didn't. There is no record of a K/T boundary glaciation.
You obviously haven't got even a rudimententary familiarity with the most
basic geologic data which underpins modern geologic theory. In your posts
you repeatedly ask your readers to discard radiometric age dating, basic
structural geology of mountain belts, the entire paleontological record
(which agrees with radiometric methods), basic rock mechanics, the
paleomagnetic record of ocean floor anomalies, plate tectonics (you
refuse to accept that the continents have a wander history prior to
Pangea), and a host of other basic data which I will not waste time
itemizing.
Please give it up and crawl back under the rock you came out from under
so that the rest of us, many of whom do actually have a basic
understanding of the available geologic data, can get back to discussing
geology.
*******************************************************************
* S Krueger (skrueger@arco.com) * *
* This message is personal and does not * This Sace For Rent *
* reflect the opinions of my employer * *
*******************************************************************
Subject: Re: CME-Fried Comets
From: "Robert D. Brown"
Date: 18 Sep 1996 01:46:20 GMT
Dear Dr. Breen:
Thank you for your kind offer to pre-referee a paper outlining the central
features of the "Asteroids are Fried-Comets Hypothesis". It is an
extremely generous offer, and everything that you have said in your two
previous posts is true. Thank you, but I decline your kind offer.
Because you have made this offer, however, I will also explain why it has
been decided (by me) to distribute the hypothesis over the Internet, as
opposed to submitting it to a formal peer-reviewed journal of science. Let
me say in advance of this explanation that the co-collaborators for this
idea have collectively published hundreds of peer-reviewed papers, and all
have individually been asked to review many additional papers submitted by
others for publication in various peer-reviewed journals of science. We do
not doubt that this hypothesis, which does indeed provide a radically new
perspective of evolution within the solar system, would be published in any
number of different journals had we decided to do so. I should also say
that I am the originator of the idea, and that the other named individuals
(Greg Canavan, Herb Shaw, and Anatoly Alekseev) functioned as my own
peer-reviewers during the formulation of the idea's core mechanisms. Now,
then, why is the "Fried-Comets Hypothesis" being introduced over the
Internet, instead.
(1) Which peers should review this idea? CME experts? Comet experts?
Asteroid experts? Orbital mechanics experts? Solar physics experts?
Plasma physics experts? Origin of the Solar System experts? Which
sub-discipline of science should grab hold of this idea to claim it as
their own? If you were an editor of a journal like Science or Nature,
publications that claim no specific sub-disciplinary favor, which three
"peers" would you ask to review the idea? I've just named seven
well-defined sub-disciplines of science whose central ideas WILL BE
profoundly modified by the "Fried-Comets Hypothesis". Would you exclude
four areas of science from the peer-review process? Would you ask for
peer-review comments from seven experts, each one from the seven different
sub-disciplines, or 21 authorities, three from each of the separate
sub-disciplines?
Take any one of these options (3, 7, or 21 "peers") and I would then
counter: "Excuse me, Robert D. Brown, the originator of this idea is a
medical doctor who publishes papers about the origin of life. This
CME-business is just one of many factors important in that process, in that
sub-discipline of science called abiogenesis. Should we then ask Gunter
Wachtershauser, in my opinion the foremost authority on the subject of
abiogenesis, to review "Asteroids are CME-Fried Comets"?
I think Richard A. Schumacher, the individual whose sole other contribution
to this series of posts amounts to a fool's form of graffiti, adequately
illustrates the mentality that goes along with "peer review" when any
entirely new trans-disciplinary synthetic idea appears, and the more
sub-disciplines an idea affects, the more fools like Richard one encounters
along the way, particularly when they function as the reviewer's of an idea
whose mechanisms and consequential implications go so far beyond their own
cognitive capacities. His appropriate citation in this paragraph
constitutes his only important contribution. Individuals, like myself,
whose specialty is trans-disciplinary integration, will always refuse the
prospect that their best works might be put in the hands of idiot's like
Richard. As above noted, idiot's like Richard (who draw exclusionary
circles around specific types of knowledge) abound on the peer-review
panels of peer-reviewed journals of science. At least on the Internet one
gets the open opportunity to express exactly what one thinks of their ilk,
something difficult to do when the "peer" is unidentified by name (as is
the case with formal publications).
2. My answer to the above question is that an idea that has the potential
to profoundly affect a wide variety of different sub-disciplines of science
should be discussed by all of the groups affected, in a forum that allows
all of them to speak openly about the subject at hand. The Internet,
though not ideal, is an appropriate medium for wide open debate. I am a
great advocate of the Internet and find it indispensable to my way of life,
my way of learning, and my way of communicating with others. You said that
USENET doesn't hold much "weight", but I would say that it holds much more
weight (in the case of trans-disciplinary ideas) than a peer-reviewed paper
in a poorly subscribed scientific journal that few can obtain and that even
fewer read. My desire is to see USENET get fat with "weight", and believe
that the way it handles the "Fried-Comets Hypothesis" provides an excellent
opportunity for me (personally) to find out if my optimism in these regards
is justified. I know that individuals like yourself exist "out there" on
the Internet, and I also know that the CME-Fried Comets Hypothesis isn't
going to roll over and "die", no matter how it fares in this forum.
3. I don't care what any journal's peer-reviewers think about the
"Asteroids are CME-Fried Comets" hypothesis because I regularly interact
with key thinkers and paid professionals in disciplines that range from
organic chemistry to orbital mechanics. Should I point out that Dr.
Canavan is one of the most influential physicists in the world, by virtue
of his many well-documented accomplishments and, because he chairs the
single largest financial trust supportive of physics graduate students in
American universities; that Academician Alekseev is an editor of multiple
mathematics and geophysics journals in Russia and the United States and is
a recipient of the FSU's highest State Medal of Science award, besides
being a senior member of the RAS; that Herb Shaw is a Newton-class genius
whose published works are destined to transform the next century's
understandings of Earth's cosmic journey through space and time. Perhaps I
should say that one of my three best friends just happens to be the most
financially successful orbital-mechanics specialist who has ever lived?
I frequent this domain, but have two (sometimes three, and when I'm showing
off I use my thumbs) of the fastest fingers in the west, and spend a
relatively small portion of my time at the keyboard. My interest in CME's,
comets, meteoritics, geoscience, and the origin of life all relate to an
entirely PERSONAL interest of mine in what happens when rocks from space
impact with Earth. The "Fried-Comets Hypothesis" has been birthed by some
of the best possible minds and is an active work in progress. What I do
not fear (because of all of the above) is that the insight might "die" on
the net instead of becoming built out in time: it has already passed muster
with several of the best people employed in all of the relevant fields
named above.
4. The "Asteroids are CME Fried-Comets" hypothesis is, in my opinion, too
obvious and too elegant to warrant space in a peer-reviewed journal. I
laid out the essence of the theory in a handful of sentences and you
recognized its revolutionary merits in moments. Because you are studying
CME's, you saw its relevance to CME's. Were I to write it up for a peer
reviewed journal, the idea (after peer review has limited the discussion to
that which is already "known") would come out in an even shorter and
obscure form, which would look like:
A) Angular momentum exists.
B) Comets have plasma tails.
C) The Sun rotates.
D) The Sun throws off balls of fire that maintain the angular momentum of
the Sun's rotation.
E) Things that move in the same volume of space interact with each other
over time.
F) One can move in two directions around the Sun, prograde and retrograde.
F) The geometry of interactions between CME's and comets explains how
nature creates asteroids, planets, and Kuiper Belt objects.
G) The numbers add up.
I don't have any problem giving some of my time to the longitudinal
discussion of CME's on USENET, and since I am the one who came up with the
parity-breaking scheme, go ahead and cite me in your own work. The idea
isn't going to leave your brain because I refuse to "publish" it, and you
already know that it is helping you to better understand other things you
already understand much better than me.
5. Time. I simply do not have the time needed to devote myself to writing
up that particular part of the "Theory of Land and Life", which is being
discussed more fully in the sci.geo.geology newsgroup. Should I point out
that this same core subject is actively censored by the sci.astro.* and
sci.bio.evolution groups. You won't get my posts on abiogenesis, impact
orogeny, and biological evolution on the astronomy USENET groups because
those board's operators are too myopic (at this time) to understand the
profound relevance of these discussions to their own discipline. Their
censors have had a hissy-fit over my "arrogant" disregard for their
ignorance of so many matters of science outside their narrowly-defined
domains. The censors/founders/maintainers of any USENET newsgroup are
still biased toward the respective theologies that they have founded. It
is a credit, I think, to the sci.geo.geology and particularly
sci.geo.petroleum USENET groups' leadership that there are (in fact)
inquisitive, intellectually honest, and noble individuals working their
boards. I get solid criticisms from these folks, and genuinely appreciate
it. They give me good reason to maintain my continuing confidence that the
Internet USENET may survive as a valuable medium for modern thinkers,
writers, and revolutionaries. Even if wags at the sci.astro.* groups have
a hemorrhoid attack at the mention of my name. This is the nature of new
ideas and how they are received by vested interests. I've studied science
history, closely. It is not all that different from any other aspect of
human history.
Now, to continue, you said you didn't think that CME's can fry comets at
the distances from the Sun that I have in mind...
CME-comet interactions may occur at nearly any distance from the Sun
because CME's remain cohesive structures at least as far out as Jupiter.
There is a LOWER limit to significant CME-comet interactions, however, and
that is for comets that traject too *close* to the Sun. These get "burnt"
instead of "fried" and never make it back around. The entire scheme of the
Fried Comets Hypothesis recognizes that the described processes are
mediated by non-linear electromagnetic field effects. As CME's move away
from the Sun, they cool, and plasmatic nuclei are transformed into
non-magnetic elements and isotopes. This results in a positive "balance"
of magnetic flux where ever they go. Comets, in contrast, generate larger
quantities of "new" plasma the closer they come toward the Sun. This
results in a negative balance for "potentially-contained" magnetic flux.
The non-linear transmission of magnetic flux through physical space leads
to the co-transport of plasma between the two types of structures. I think
there are ways that we can force these interactions to occur, when we want
them to occur. What do you think?
Robert D. Brown, M.D.
Pelorus Research Laboratory
Subject: Re: A Summary of TLL: GUT-Wrenching Reality
From: "Robert D. Brown"
Date: 18 Sep 1996 03:06:05 GMT
>
> I just don't see how the terrestrial sea-sediments have been thrown,
> all in a piece, onto the just formed (molten?... no;
> you said, it was just the shockwave) mountainring,
Did not say this. Some oceanic crust adjacent to continents subducts.
Some oceanic crust distant from land and distant from an impact site will
be retained in a water-swept but geologically intact form. RDB
but do you suppose that
> the ages of the various mountains of the ring are all different,
> owing to differing derivations from Pangaea?
Yes. RDB
> in any case, you seem to deny the mechanism of plate-moving,
> while asserting that it is due to the accretion of the bolides; so,
> I take it that you essentially *do* agree with the mantle-currents ...
Mantle currents generated largely by impacts, old and recent. The standard
model has ignored the impacts. RDB
> no; you said that there was no force found to match it (although
> I have just submitted the "toggle press" analog,
> which relies upon the tremendous compressive strength of rock,
> formed at the ridges by their raising & lowering
> by the periodical changes of magmatic pressure) so,
> what moves the plates -- just the periodical impacts, period?...
Causally, primarily? Yes. Think of the square function of area and the
cube function of volume within an impact context. RDB
> no way, Jose Brown!... I've never seen a toggle press, although
> I found an ad for one in UCSC's machine-shop, but I know how
> it works, at the working end, based upon the riftology.
Hit a toggle press with an iron asteroid moving at cosmic velocity. It
will deform. RDB
> also, how do you account fopr the periodicity of glaciation,
> which has been largely correlated (if not caused) to Earth's orbital
> variations?
The correlative periodicities I have seen relate both/either to Solar
cycles and to ecliptic plane precessions that facilitate impacts. RDB
> I do want to *sing* to Jupiter -- not the god!... after all,
> this is the *only* bolidal impact that we have ever observed, and
> it was definitively kept forever away from us!...
We are young. Earth is old. RDB
it is fine
> to take an allegory of Plato at face-value, but
> the impact-o-genesis model of the Moon is hardly required -- *if*
> other ways can be found to explain the rest of Life & Land -- but
> I really do admire your theoretical sweep -- oops!
Thank you, again. RDB
> the unfortunate thing about Jupiter's just-scene influence
> on the local cosmos for us is, that most of the "astronomical
> community" sees things-orbital as quite haphazard and, hence,
> the reliance upon the "theory of chaos";
Chaos is real. So are supernova that continuously dump "cold dark matter"
in the form of very cold, non-radiative (dark)/ unseen iron accretions into
interstellar space. These are ballistic impactors we cannot detect. RDB
> if you look into Alfven's cosmology, you'll see that
> this is the general case, "on out" --
Alfven was the first to suggest the plasma-mediated interactions I discuss
in CME-Fried Comets. RDB
but Newton muddied the void
> with his algebraic reduction to "universal gravitation", and
> everyone has since been going a little crazy over particles,
> billiard-balls, and other bolides, even though we all know,
> from QM being shoved down our throats by Copenhagenschoolers,
> that it's also wavelike.
Don't forget the chemical "all or nothing" nature of neurotransmission. We
are that part of the universe that sees particles and infers waves. Its
all waves outside ourselves. Time-energy function of one cycle of the
thiamin shuttle = Planck's Constant RDB
Robert D. Brown, M.D.
Pelorus Research Laboratory
Subject: Re: Arguments for Worldwide Flood
From: soliver@capecod.net (Suzane Oliver)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 07:06:55 GMT
At 05:18 PM 9/15/96 -0700, you wrote:
>On Mon, 9 Sep 1996, Suzane Oliver wrote:
>> Follow ups cross posted to sci.sckeptic, talk origins and sci.geo.geology. If
>> this is off topic for you please accept my apologies, and email your FAQ files
>> to me, I am looking for knowledgable assistance with this idiot. As
>> alt.atheism is for atheists to help each other deal with problems with
>> non-atheists, I am removing it form the follow -up line
>> Please also CC me all replies via Email as I am on a server that only gets one
>> message in four lately and it is making me crazy.
>> John: May I suggest that you go to http://pricecostco.com/stroud/cwsa.html and
>> get Agent 99 and register it. It is an excellent news reader with a built in
>> spell check. I have take the liberty of cleaning up your spelling where I
>> could figure out what you were talking about.
Again, please get this, as it will allow you to post off line on your own pace
and not rush when you are running out of time.
>> John, I started out in geology, specializing in geomorphology, and went almost
>> to a degree in it before changing majors, I shall tell you what I remember,
>> but my texts were lost in a house fire a few years back ... with luck others
>> will come in with the exact references where necessary.
>> On Sept 8, 1996, mccoy@sierra.net (John McCoy) opined:
>> > Message-Id: <50tk3f$spq@nntp.sierra.net>
>> > 1.Worldwide distribution of flood traditions
>> Since most early settlements were near a source of water, this is not
>> surprising. You will note, however, that there is a very great disparity in
>> the legends as to who or what cause the flood, who survived the flood and how
>> it was survived.
>> Mark Isaak has put together an interesting web page with synopses of many of
>> the legends, you can find it at http://pubweb.acns.nwu.edu/~pib/flood.htm
>Frazier's book actually names and cites flood legends. Disparity in the
>facts does not disprove it. But it is enlightening to know that they
>exist. It is exactly what we would expect had their been a flood. If no
>legends existed at all I would be extremely skeptical about it.
What is Frazier's book?
There were many floods, at many different times, for many civilizations, that
is why the legends are different. The stories are against your theory.
>> > 2.Origin of civilization near Ararat-Babylon region in post flood time
>> What exactly is your date for the flood. What exactly is your evidence of
>> this? What is your point? Civilization started in a particular place at a
>> particular time, so therefore there was a flood before it?
>The date is not important. What is important is that civilization started
>at the point in the vicinity of the area where the ark settled.
I repeat, what is your evidence that civilization started where your story
says the ark landed? And if it did, how does it therefore follow that there
was a flood?
>3.Convergence of population growth statistics on date of flood >
>> What does this mean? What is the point of this statement?
>A relative estimate of what the population would be like if there had
>been no flood.
And what is your estimate? Draw us a population curve showing how many people
were alive when, assuming we all descended from Noah and fils.
>> > 4. Dating of Oldest living things at post flood time.
>> What does this mean?
>A reference to those trees.
What trees?
>> > 5.Worldwide occurrence of water laid sediments and sedimentary rocks
>> Where there was water, there were water laid settlements. One can tell what
>> was laid down in streams, lakes or seas; or shallow or deep. What is the point
>> of this statement?
>But it's everywhere.
If you are saying there are only sedimentary rocks in the world, you are
wrong,
>> > 6.Recent uplift of major mountain ranges
>> Are you saying that the Himalayas are now uplifted because of pressure from a
>> great flood? What is your evidence of this? What are the forces necessary to
>> move the Indian Plate into China? How much water would it have taken?
>The mechanism is not quite understood. BUt relative youngness is measured
>by erosion.
Yes, younger mountains are less eroded, the himalayas are less eroded than
the appalachians. What's your point? What is the answer to the rest of the
questions?
>> > This is totally ridiculous you know!
>> > 7.Marine fossils on crests of mountains
>> So? Do you have an idea as to how long the fossilization process takes? Are
>> we finding fossils where recent floods have been?
>Fossilization is a process that can occur fast given the right
>conditions.
And these conditions are????
>> Of course, John, we do not, and depending on the circumstances it takes a
>> great many years to turn a shell into a fossil.
>> > 8.Evidence of former worldwide warm climate
>> When former, how warm? Are you suggesting the entire earth was tropical all at
>> once? What is the evidence for this? What are your refrences?
>Fossilized vegetation matter is found in the North and South poles and
>all over in the geologic column.
Yes, so? Again: what former, how warm and all at once? ,,, And I am unaware of
any fossils found in the northern ice caps. What are your refrences to these?
>> > 9. Necessity of catastrophic burial and rapid lithification of fossil
>> > deposits
>> You are saying that, since the fossils are there, and the flood occurred, that
>> fossilization must have been rapid. This assumes the conclusion and is not
>> good science at all! Have you perhaps any evidence of this? Are there any
>> experiments performed that test how fast a fossil can be formed?
>No/ Fossilization takes place when burial in sediments is rapid and
>complete.
>Laboratories have proved this. They can also create coal in laboratories.
>It involves heat and pressure.
What laboratories and when? And, many fossils show evidence of NOT rapid and
complete burial, may show evidence of predation, decay, and only partial
burial. for example, in this thread was some one with a shell with only
partial coverings of barnacles. Go to any museum and see the displays as well.
>> > 10.Recent origin of many datable geological processes
>> For instance? Yes Mt. St Helen has recent, datable geological changes. So does
>> Karakatoa, and Vesuvius, depending on what you qualify as recent. There are,
>> this year, changes in the Mississippi delta and in the easternmost reaches of
>> Cape Cod. So, what's your point?
>I think the point is self evident.
The point is, this is irrelevant to your flood theory
>> > 11. Worldwide distribution of all types of fossils
>> If you are saying that all fossils are found evenly spread all over the world,
>> you are incorrect. What do you mean here??
>. Fossilization is extremely rare. It takes place under special conditions.
Yes, exactly, so what has this to do with proving a worldwide flood??
>> > 12. Uniform physical appearance of rocks from different ages
>> Yes, John, Granite looks like granite, shale like shale and basalt like
>> basalt, what would you expect?
>Theat they were mixed.
They are not mixed. Maine and New Hampshire have a lot of granite, Vermont has
a lot of marble and other metamorphosed rock, Ohio has limestone and shale and
little igneous and metamorphic, and Cape Cod is sand.
>> > 13. Frequent mixing of fossils from different "ages"
>> Give references and examples here, please.
>Do you really need examples. They are called polystrate fossils.
Your'e darn right I need to what you are talking about and where and when they
were found etcetera.
>> > 14.Near random deposition of formational sequences
>> Give references and examples here, please. What is the point of this
>> statement?
>Nope. You look for it yourself this time.
John, you forget, I have but 4 credits short of a degree in geology. It didn't
happen.
>> > 15. Equivalence of total organic material in present world and fossil world
>> Give references and examples here, please. What is the point of this
>> statement?
>You reallywant me to work don't you. This requires a separate post in
>itself which is worthy of mass consumption.
Ok, so post it. It's your theory, and from past experience, I don't take much
you say without proof.
>> > 16. Wide distribution of volcanic rocks >
>> Are you saying that vulcanism is caused by flooding? What are the reasons for
>> this outlandish statement???
>No. The genesis record clearly stated that the earth broke open during
>the flood.
That's a lot like my telling you I met a leprechaun in the woods the other day
and he hid in a tree, and I can prove it, here is the tree right here!
In other words, so what??? The bible says there were volcanoes during the
flood, here is a volcano, there for there was a flood? I don't think so.
>> > > 17. Evidence of recent water bodies in present desert areas
>> Give references and examples here, please. Include details as to whether this
>> evidence is that of dried lake beds, fall or rise in sea level, change in
>> river-bed or flooding, and if so, what is the percentage of salt in the
>> desert sands.
>Boy this is getting discouraging. Could you look for this info. in your
>secular text books?
Been there, done that, the evidence for your flood is not there.
>> > 18. Worldwide occurrence of rivers in valleys too large for the present
>> > stream.
>> Give references and examples here, please. Please include evidence that this
>> is not due to glaciation expanding the river valley, change in river direction
>> upstream, a rise in sea or lake level or silting in of the river mouth.
>Oh come on! Look at the Grand Canyon. YOU have these tiny little rivers
>that go through it, but a mass of land cut away that's around it, that is
>evidence of a larger river.
Or a very long time.
>> > > 21. Sudden extinction of dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals >
>> Give references and examples here, please. Are you speaking of the Irish Elk
>> and the Great Sloth too? Or just the demise of the dinosaurs, which appears to
>> have suddenly happened over several million years?
>Come on! These creatures did not have a chance to decay, giving evidence
>that they were fossilized, meaning that they were instantly buried!
Piffle.
>> > > 22. Rapid onset of glacial period >
>> Which glacial period are you referring to and how is this related to the
>> flood? Do you believe that it is a cause of the flood or a result? What is
>> the point of this statement?
>Before there was glacier the area covered indicated a mild climate. Ever
>heard of Greenland?
Sure. And Eric the Red and all that, To bad their colony in Canada didn't make
it, think of how much fun the later settlers would have had if they had met
Vikings instead of Indians, But I digres...Are you aware of how many ice ages
there is geologic evidence of? And, is it your claim that the flood caused
the retreat of the ice? and how is this related to the mini ice age that froze
Europe during the late middle ages ? Or are you saying that the melting
glaciers caused the flood?
>> > 23. Existence of polystrate fossils
>> Give references and examples here, please. What is the point of this
>> statement?
>My mind is becoming numb.
Yes, John, it clearly is.
>> > 24. Preservation of tracks and other ephemeral markings throughout
>> > geologic column.
>> You have it right here, it is a geological column. many layers, laid down over
>> millions of years. This is evidence of the age of the earth, and evidence
>> which disproves your thesis.
>This is no evidence. If there is a mud flow and people and animals were
>running across it, we would expect different layers of footprints. Those
>who ran across the flow would be on top.
It has to dry very hard before the next layer arrives in order to preserve the
tracks. This is very difficult in the middle of a flood,
>> > 25. Worldwide occurrence of sedimentary fossil graveyards in rocks of all
>> > "ages"
>> Give references and examples here, please. What is the point of this
>> statement?
>Are you really asking me this? Think about it.
Yep. Now I know you think that if you see a pile of shells in a fossil, they
must have died all at once in a sudden catastrophe, but I can take you to
where I go down to the beach and I see pockets where shells collect as the
currents bring them in from the scallop beds off shore, I know the beaches
from 45 years, and my father from 70, same pocket of scallop shells has been
there all this time. On the other side of the bay there are pocket of clams
and boat shells, depending what is growing off shore. At a bend in a river,
animals and fish will collect in brush. It doesn't mean what you think it
means.
>> > 26. Absence of any physical evidence of chronological boundary between
>> > rocks of successive "ages"
>> I don't understand what you mean here. Were you expecting an easily
>> identifiable demarcation between ages? Why???
>Hmmmm
Another un supported assertion? Did you give up at this point?
>> > 27. Occurrence of all rock types (shale, limestone, granite, etc.) in all
>> > "ages"
>> The processes that formed these rocks occurred in all ages.
>> > 28 Parallel of supposed evolutionary sequence through different "ages"
>> Give references and examples here, please. What is the point of this
>> statement?
>> > 29. Lack of correlation of most radiometric "ages" with assumed
>> > paleontological "ages"
>> Give references and examples here, please. What is the point of this
>> statement?
>> > 30. Absence of meteorites in geologic column
>> Meteorites are a very rare occupance and hard to spot in any case. I am not
>> sure if this is even a true statement, does anyone have any refrences to the
>> contrary?
>> > 31. Absence of hail imprints in geologic column, despite abundance of
>> > fossil ripple marks and raindrop imprints
>> How does one tell a hail imprint from a raindrop? And what does this prove?
>> Give references and examples here, please.
>> > 32. Evidence of man's existence during earliest of geologic "ages"
>> > (ie.e., human footprints in Cambrian, Carboniferous and Cretaceous
>> > formations)
>> I know of only one incidence of a foot print ant that was an admitted hoax.
>> Are you aware of more than one? Give references and examples here, please.
>> Once again, John a post devoid of factual content.
And again.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Do you know that weary feeling when your mind is strangely strangled
and your head is like a ball of wool that's very, very tangled;
and the tempo of your thinking must be lenient and mild,
as though you were explaining to a very little child.
Piet Hein, 1970
--------------------------
Subject: Re: RFD: reorganize sci.geo.earthquakes and sci.geo.geology - 12 Sept 96, version 6
From: tfile@ibm.net (t-files)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 00:15:29 GMT
russ@seismo.demon.co.uk (Russ Evans) wrote:
>In article <51l7l8$ok1@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net>, tfile@ibm.net (t-files) wrote:
>> I think that an article crossposted to news.announce.newgroups
>> and news.groups, enters a long que for moderation. These 2 groups
>> are taken off the header and it is posted to the remaining groups.
>> I am sure that Richard is right on this point.
>That is not at all the case. Submissions to n.a.n are reviewed, initially
>by group-advice and subsequently by tale, before posting to n.a.n and
>all affected groups *simultaneously*...
>Please check your facts before posting, by reading the guidelines on group
>creation which are regularly published in news.announce.newgroups.
>Followups directed to news.groups, which is where all of this discussion
>should be occuring.
Well, I've checked again and it looks I was not too far off. What you
are saying would be correct if the recommended procedure was followed.
That is to email the RFD to newsgroups@uunet.nn.net, and let them do
the posting if it is approved. But in this case the RFD was posted to
news.announce.newsgroups, news.groups, s.g.g., and s.g.e.:
>I posted the RFD to the following groups:
>news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,sci.geo.earthquakes,sci.geo.geology
When *posted* to n.a.n. it will still enter the que. Now the
procedures say that "messages intended for n.a.n. should not publicly
appear anywhere -- not in news.groups or other groups... before they
are in n.a.n." If they are going to hold the submission at n.a.n., it
would not make any sense let the article continue into news.groups and
the other groups because it has to wait for approval, at which time
they will post it to the rest of the newsgroups. So it looks like when
they receive the posting, their software automatically stops the
article from appearing in any newsgroups. It is not surprising that
their programming happens to be in accordance with what they want
followed, but they set up Usenet didn't they.
Also the discussion in news.groups is not supposed to start until
after the approval of the RFD. Discussion preliminary to the RFD is
supposed to be in the specific newsgroups concerned.
After the posting did not appear, Richard then posted it to s.g.g. and
s.g.e.:
>Being aware of the fact that my above crosspost may not appear
>for a while, I posted the RFD to the groups that should be
>invloved in the dicussion, which is the correct procedure
>when a reorganization is specified. The discussion should not
>by buried in the news.group group. It belongs here since it
>affects the people already here.
Well, it was not the correct procedure, but he is correct in that the
pre RFD discussion is supposed to be here and not in news.groups.
Now what is more important than these technical details, is that this
was presented as "one more reason not to trust" Richard Adams etc. He
was essentially called a liar, when in reality what he said was true.
Sure Richard is not following all the procedures correctly, and some
of his proposal needs a good bit more work. But that may come
together, maybe if some people could be a little more consrtuctive
rather than just criticizing him. I am supportive of his efforts
because he happens to be the only person who is trying to make a
contribution to resolving this problem. And it is a problem, I think
that s.g.g. is currently terrible, and that it will eventually become
worse as people continue to leave or an alternate internet resources
become available.
In order to use this newsgroup for it's intended purpose one has to go
out and purchase a newsreader with killfiles etc, and then hide the
majority of the articles from view - currently about 60 % are way off
topic. Then one has to pay to download a bunch of offending headers,
and wait for all this to happen. And what for, so that people like
"zoner" the zipperhead have the freedom to start numerous threads
crossposted to 17 newsgroups, on his basis that religious content is
an acceptable excuse for being rude. Even lots of people in his
favourite newsgroups are totally annoyed at him.
When people have to killfile over 50% one starts seeing comments like
this:
: In spite of my best efforts, my killfile has been completely
: unable to keep up...
Now Richard Adams writes:
>The question before the group is whether we want it
>to continue to degrade through others abuse of their free
>speech by crossposting off topic and spam to these groups.
>That is the problem that is adequately addressed by the robot
>moderator. Most people surveyed that want some form of
>moderation agree with the principles of free speech, but yet
>want to get rid of the crossposts and spammers.
And most in the newsgroup do not appreciate that there could be
potential in this (after a few more revisions), and will not discuss
this with civility.
A moderated geology newsgroup could be started without any changes to
the existing group, and if there are a good number of people who would
like this, it would be much appreciated if others would not get in the
way. The earthquakes newsgroups do not seem to need moderation, but a
moderated geology newsgroup could work out really good, and I don't
agree that it would be boring.
Anyways, I was told to "please check your facts before posting", when
I was actually pretty close to being correct.
Followups directed away from news.groups, where none of this
discussion should be occuring.
-------
t-files
technology - all technical topics.