Hi Allen,
You wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Allen Roy [mailto:allenroy@peoplepc.com]
>Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 10:06 AM
>To: Glenn Morton; asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: Re: Glenn makes front page of AiG today
>
>
>From: Glenn Morton <glenn.morton@btinternet.com>
>> Please interpret for me how you would go about interpreting the
>> Haymond formation within a Biblical paradigm? Here is the data.
>> Here are the observations:
[snip]
>
>From: "Flood geology of the Crimean Pneinsula, Part 1, Tavrick
>Formation" by
>Alexander V. Lalomov, CRSQ, Vol 38, No. 3, December 2001:
[irrelevant stuff snipped]
Wait a minute. This is clearly bait and switch. I asked for an
interpretation of the Haymond formation and you go off talking about the
Crimea. This is not relevant to the issues I laid on the table. Please stay
on topic. What do you have to say about the Haymond formation? Don't quote
someone on some other topic.
I wrote:
>> All the
>> fossiliferous sediments in this area are 5000 m in thickness. To do the
>> entire column in one year requires 1300/5000*365=95 days for the
>time over
>> which the Haymond must be deposited. This means that 157 sand/shale
>couplets
>> per day must be deposited. That means that the burrowers must
>repopulate
>> the shale 157 times per day, dig holes, be buried, then survive
>the burial
>> to dig again another 156 times that day. Shoot, Sissyphus only had to
>roll
>> the boulder uphill once a day. What on earth did these burrowers do to
>> deserve this young-earth fate?
>
Allen replied:
>These deposits are turbidite deposits under high energy and could
>easly have
>occurred in a short time.
Nice mantra. I can be deposited in a short time, you can be deposited in a
short time, all god's chillin's can be deposited in a short time ans so can
the Haymond be deposited in a short time. Wonderful mantra. If you say it 20
times and use prayer beads I will send you this fine blessed prayer cloth.
Now, get serious and tell me how short a time, how often per day the little
critters must dig, where was the source rock comeing from, how could the
sand and shale be separated so cleanly if the mud was still stirred up in
the flood waters. Quit mindlessly repeating mantras and give an actual
explanation.
>
>The burrow holes are where the worms dug their way out after being burried
>in the shale during the turbitide events. (not burrows down into the shale)
False, if that were the case, there would be a little conical hill around
each burrow hole. There isn't. And the burrowing out would drag shale up
into the sand which is not observed. Back to the drawing board Allen.
Allen wrote:
>During the turbidite events,
>1. shale mud with worms (or whatever did the burrowing) is deposited
>quickly.
>2. The worms dig their way out leaving the cast.
So where is the conical hill around each escape burrow? We see this
sometimes with some critters, but not here.
>3. The sand is deposited quickly and fills the burrows,
>4. the worms are washed away in the fast moving current and not
>deposited in
>the sand.
>5. goto 1.
Your model has observational data missing from it. No conical mound from
the dirt thrown out of the mud by the critter trying to leave.
>
>Such Turbidite events could easily be associated with Noah's flood
>catastrophe that consisted of thousands of events from asteroid impacts and
>Catastrophic plate tectonics.
And lemonade springs could also be the fountains of the deep, but merely
saying it doesn't make it so. As I have previously mentioned to you but you
fail to believe, thousands of asteroid events would be the equivalent of
more than all the nukes in the worlds arsenals going off at once. Everything
would die. And as to Catastrophic plate tectonics, I have pointed out to
you before that Baumgardner's model would generate 10^28 joules and this
burn up the earth. Of course you don't care for this conclusion so you
ignore it but don't solve it.
>
>> As we go east from the Marathon Mountains, these beds go deeper
>and deeper
>> and are buried by Tertiary sediments which eventually reach 75,000 feet
>> thickness in the region of the mouth of the Mississippi. Because the
>> Haymond is buried by the Tertiary, we know that the Tertiary sediments of
>> the Gulf are younger than the Haymond. Thus if the Tertiary sediment and
>the
>> Haymond are flood deposits, then the Haymond may only have had
>less than a
>> month for all that burrowing.
>>
>> I eagerly await the Biblical interpretation of this data.
>
>See above.
You failed to explain how the 75,000 feet of sediment lies atop the burrows
and how quickly the burrows could be made and you failed to explain where
the sediment came from and how rapidly it was deposited whether it was post
flood or during the flood. You haven't explained anything.
>
>> >then the only
>> >> rational position for one to take who really believes the
>Bible teaches
>> >> them is that the Bible teaches falsehood and is, therefore, no more to
>be
>> >> trusted than the writings of Homer.
>> >
>> >The only rational position for one to take who really believes the Bible
>> >teaches them is that interpretations of the data within the myth of
>> >Naturalism must be false and no more to be trusted than sifting sand.
>>
>> Ah, I see, the procedure is this. If what I see with my eyes is in
>> disagreement with my theology, my eyes are lying. .....
>
>ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So you agree that the guy could tell his wife that her eyes were lying. WOW!
What an epistemology!!!!
>
>Your theology must interpret what your eyes see. If not, you have no
>theology. What usually happens is that the interpretation of what is seen
>comes from someone else's conflicting theology. It is the theologies that
>are at war, not what you see.
>
All I see is a guy who won't explain the data within his paradigm and who
only offers mantras.
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 07 2002 - 17:31:19 EST