Original Message Follows:
=========================
evolution-digest Wednesday, February 10 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1293
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 18:06:02 -0700
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Flood Model [was Early Cambrian explosion]
>At 10:19 PM 2/8/99 -0700, Kevin wrote:
>
>>Perhaps yes, perhaps no, but I did some rough calculations awhile back and
>>discovered that if all the carbonate rocks had been laid down during the
>>Deluge, the amount of heat released would have raised the surface
>>temperature of the earth to over 1000 degrees Celsius during the flood
year.
>>I leave it to your imagination as to what effect this would have on the
Ark
>>and on the earth's biosphere as a whole.
>
>This is assuming calcium carbonate is precipitated from solution; which you
>know it was not; at least not immediately.
>
You and I know that, but the vast majority of creationists seem to believe
otherwise. Walter Brown is a typical example. (Apparently, Karen believes
this as well.) The only notable exceptions I know of are Baumgartner and
his colleagues at the ICR (and now yourself as well). Undoubtably there are
others, but they constitute a distinct minority. One thing I will say,
however, is that those who reject the deposition-from-solution model are
themselves good geologists and so were able to catch the obvious flaws. Now
if they would only publish an Impact article explaining those flaws for
their followers.
>
>Most of the carbonates I have
>studied are transported assemblages. For example, the Devonian DeNay
>Limestone in northcentral Nevada, 600 meters of a typical lime mudstone is
>all transported in from outside the basin as turbidites. No temperature
>change there. Lots more like that.
>
>>First of all, the deposits are not pure: they contain plankton, pollen
and
>>volcanic dust, among other impurities, exactly what you would expect if
the
>>deposits had been formed by evaporation.
>
>Most halites I have studied (I have processed hundreds of samples) are
>pretty much sterile. There are some halites, such as the famous Cambrian
>salts of Punjab province in India that are loaded with palynomorphs and
>insect fragments of putative "Eocene age". Now there is a salt that has
>pollen and junk in it. But how do you explain it in Cambrian salt?
>
There were volcanoes and deserts (a major source of dust), as well as soils,
in the Cambrian as well. Could you please provide citations that describe
these sterile halites? The references I have claim that halites universally
contain impurities. Thanks.
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 18:22:25 -0700
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Flood Model [was Early Cambrian explosion]
Rhubarb! Rhubarb!
>At 04:04 PM 2/9/99 -0500, Steve wrote:
>
>> The problem I have with people like you or Austin bringing this stuff up
>is that
>>you NEVER mention the negative evidence! You guys selectively report the
>data in
>>order to bolster your case -- a tactic which is definitely frowned upon in
>science
>>(but not, evidently, among young-earth or flood geologists). I think I
>clearly
>>documented that Austin did indeed do that in my last post and I think you
>were
>>trying to get away with it now.
>
>Look at your last publication, and tell me how much paper you devoted to
>attempting to disprove your thesis. I am sorry, but science doesn't work
>like that, and you ought to know it. We are attempting to present a case
>which has 1000 detractors for every supporter. Why should you expect me to
>do your homework for you. What keeps science advancing is the interactions
>of the community, not the individual scientists, each of which labors under
>some paradigm or other. Every scientist is attempting to advance some
>thesis, not to shoot one of his or her own down. Be realistic, Steve, quit
>grousing and name-calling, and expecting me to do your homework for you!
>
Actually, in all the papers I have written I spend half the discussion
talking about the problems of my paradigm (my PIs insist on it!). This is
partially to admit that there are problems, partially to beat my detractors
to the punch. However, I will admit that in every case I tried to put the
best possible spin on the situation: I either explained that the problems
were not serious or described what experiments I planned to do next to
resolve those problems. Most of the biochemical papers I read do much the
same. Is geology different?
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 21:51:19 -0600
From: Bill Payne <bpayne15@juno.com>
Subject: Re: Early Cambrian explosion
>Welcome back Bill
Thanks, good to see you again, Jonathan.
>I am glad that you have continued to reflect on these questions. It
>is great
>that you recognise the evidence for roots beneath at least some coal
>deposits.
>
>Your proposed allochthonous model is to my mind very unlikely. It
>might be
>just possible in rare instances, but to expect your model to explain
>all
>rootlet horizons beneath all coal horizons is taking special pleading
>to an
>extreme.
Picky, Picky! :-)
It fails completely to explain laterally extensive rootlet
>horizons
>beneath paleosols where there is no evidence what so ever for floating
>mats
>of vegetation settling on the dunes, or even for them being
>submerged.
>Occam's razor is an important component even in geology.
I would consider what you describe if I had ever seen such. Have you
seen or read of these "laterally extensive rootlet horizons beneath
paleosols" in the southeastern US? Every coal I can remember has either
had no roots or a shallow (~ 3 inch) root zone.
Today, I revisited the Village Creek excavation in Birmingham. The
excavation is now about 15 feet deeper than when I was last out there,
and another coal seam (the American seam) is exposed. The American seam
is sitting directly on light gray sandstone, and there is no evidence of
any carbonaceous material below the coal. You could lay a knife blade on
the contact and have coal above and sandstone below.
I also noticed several sections of a fossil tree trunk in a pile of
rubble. The base of the tree is as large as any I have seen, about 2
feet in diameter. You would think if such trees grew in coal swamps,
there would be some evidence of their stumps in the coal. Instead we see
unbroken beds of impurities stretching hundreds of feet horizontally in
coal seams. Where are the tree stumps if these trees once grew in coal
swamps?
In his paper, Bob Gastaldo showed a diagram of a Lepidodendron tree with
its Stigmaria axis system of roots. Gastaldo wrote: "Calculated depth
of stigmarian penetration is provided for two commonly encountered angles
of divergence [7 and 10 degrees from the horizontal] assuming no change
in axial direction." At a distance of ~ 12 meters from the base of the
tree, the deeper roots are ~ 4 meters below the surface. Why don't we
see these roots penetrating the "paleosols" below coal seams? Do you see
these roots below Australian coal? (Don't forget, you're looking at it
upside down!) :-)
Bill
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 22:01:46 -0800
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Evaporites and rates
Alternating layers --
Are you saying that yearly seasonal variation is the only possible
interpretation of the observation of alternating abundances of the
impurities?
<b>Perhaps you could present an alternative explanation which takes into =
account the observed structure as well as the periodicities of several =
hundreds of thousands of years ? Periodicities which match known =
processes ?</b>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 18:02:24 +1100
From: Jonathan Clarke <jdac@alphalink.com.au>
Subject: Re: Flood Model [was Early Cambrian explosion]
Kevin O'Brien wrote:
> Rhubarb! Rhubarb!
>
> >At 04:04 PM 2/9/99 -0500, Steve wrote:
> >
> >> The problem I have with people like you or Austin bringing this stuff up
> >is that
> >>you NEVER mention the negative evidence! You guys selectively report the
> >data in
> >>order to bolster your case -- a tactic which is definitely frowned upon in
> >science
> >>(but not, evidently, among young-earth or flood geologists). I think I
> >clearly
> >>documented that Austin did indeed do that in my last post and I think you
> >were
> >>trying to get away with it now.
> >
> >Look at your last publication, and tell me how much paper you devoted to
> >attempting to disprove your thesis. I am sorry, but science doesn't work
> >like that, and you ought to know it. We are attempting to present a case
> >which has 1000 detractors for every supporter. Why should you expect me to
> >do your homework for you. What keeps science advancing is the interactions
> >of the community, not the individual scientists, each of which labors under
> >some paradigm or other. Every scientist is attempting to advance some
> >thesis, not to shoot one of his or her own down. Be realistic, Steve, quit
> >grousing and name-calling, and expecting me to do your homework for you!
> >
>
> Actually, in all the papers I have written I spend half the discussion
> talking about the problems of my paradigm (my PIs insist on it!). This is
> partially to admit that there are problems, partially to beat my detractors
> to the punch. However, I will admit that in every case I tried to put the
> best possible spin on the situation: I either explained that the problems
> were not serious or described what experiments I planned to do next to
> resolve those problems. Most of the biochemical papers I read do much the
> same. Is geology different?
Not in my experience!
> Kevin L. O'Brien
Jonathan Clarke
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 21:47:45 +1100
From: Jonathan Clarke <jdac@alphalink.com.au>
Subject: [Fwd: Prawns joke]
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------EAD9447879AD3408109EB78A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear all
Read and Groan!
Jonathan
- --------------EAD9447879AD3408109EB78A
Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="nsmailB3.TMP"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="nsmailB3.TMP"
Received: by pop.alphalink.com.au (mbox jdac)
(with Cubic Circle's cucipop (v1.31 1998/05/13) Wed Feb 10 17:20:33 1999)
X-From_: Peter.H.Woods@north.com.au Wed Feb 10 09:53:34 1999
Return-Path: Peter.H.Woods@north.com.au
Received: from nthnetdmz1.north.com.au (nthnetdmz1.north.com.au [203.15.222.10])
by mail.alphalink.com.au (8.9.2/8.6.9) with ESMTP id JAA05012 for
<jdac@alphalink.com.au>; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:53:27 +1100 (EST)
Received: from northgate.north.com.au (unverified) by nthnetdmz1.north.com.au
(Content Technologies SMTPRS 2.0.15) with SMTP id
<B0000165940@nthnetdmz1.north.com.au>;
Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:54:38 +1100
Received: by northgate.north.com.au (Lotus SMTP MTA Internal build v4.6.2
(651.2 6-10-1998)) id 4A256713.008314B8 ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:51:45 +1000
X-Lotus-FromDomain: NORTH
From: "Peter H Woods" <Peter.H.Woods@north.com.au>
To: bateman@vision.net.au, sbrowny@hotmail.com, ryanmob@lisp.com.au,
jdac@alphalink.com.au, 01699@nabalco.com.au,
Phil.Cross@TWDJAPE.TW.nt.gov.au, glyn@olney-bucks.freeserve.co.uk,
CIngrame@scondwn1.telstra.com.au, KennettSmith@bigpond.com,
mmilne@unley.sa.gov.au, SandyandWendy@onaustralia.com.au,
donm@henryw.com.au, Greg.Rippon@ea.gov.au, t01igs@abdn.ac.uk,
john.symons@wanadoo.fr, trendy@wirrig.com.au
Message-Id: <4A256713.00831284.00@northgate.north.com.au >
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 08:23:07 +0930
Subject: Prawns joke
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
- ---------------------- Forwarded by Peter H Woods/ERA/North/AU on 10/02/99
08:15 AM ---------------------------
There were two prawns, James and Christian, swimming along the bottom of
the ocean. James accidentally rubs up against an old lantern and whoosh, a
genie appears and grants James two wishes. After a moment's thought James
decides that he wants to becomes a shark so as to gain the respect of all
the creatures of the sea.
Whoosh, James becomes a shark and swims off. Two weeks later James is
upset. All of his old friends are now afraid of him and his life is
miserable. He decides to use his second wish, and he wishes to be a prawn
once again. Whoosh.... Now a prawn again James swims away to look for his
mate Christian. When he arrives at Christian's house he knocks on the door
and shouts out for Christian. " Go away", says Christian, "you're a shark
and you'll just eat me" "No I won't", shouts James, "I'm a prawn again
Christian".
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.
**********************************************************************
- --------------EAD9447879AD3408109EB78A--
------------------------------
End of evolution-digest V1 #1293
********************************