sentientsynth
New member
I emailed him (from the link that fool provided.) So far no response. I'll call the number given in a couple of days if he doesn't respond before then.
Manganese Nodules: Young or Old?
- Thread starter Bob Enyart
- Start date
sentientsynth
New member
You're probably right, but I figured it's worth a shot in the dark. As far as I know, he's our only lead, and I want this verified just as much as anyone else.
sentientsynth
New member
No Luck this time
No Luck this time
I called John Yates today. Got his answering machine. I'll try back tomorrow. And the next day...and the next day....until I reach him.
I'll probably get a good chewing out for my efforts, but, just maybe, this is the man, or perhaps can point me in the right direction,
Taking one for the team,
SS
No Luck this time
I called John Yates today. Got his answering machine. I'll try back tomorrow. And the next day...and the next day....until I reach him.
I'll probably get a good chewing out for my efforts, but, just maybe, this is the man, or perhaps can point me in the right direction,
Taking one for the team,
SS
truthteller86
New member
What for being the most beaned at the plate player in major league history (244) ?Jukia said:
Good Job. But I think it was being hit by pitch, not beaned. And somewhere I think I heard that someone else is approaching that stat. But Baylor would just stand there, take one, turn and trot to first. I never saw him get angry at a pitcher (although he may have, thats gotta hurt a bit). But he was a big muscled up guy and just seemed to shrug it off and take his base.truthteller86 said:
Climbing...
Climbing...
Reported:
Now that I've linked to this thread from the Bob's Writings page at KGOV, I'm sure we'll see that number climb higher
.
So, fool found out that this thread (Google 17 of 121k on Jan. 16, '06 for: manganese nodules) is famous. I often google with double quotes, and found us at G16 of 48k on Jan. 18 for: "manganese nodules". We're climbing already .
-Bob
Climbing...
Reported:
fool said:
Now that I've linked to this thread from the Bob's Writings page at KGOV, I'm sure we'll see that number climb higher
.So, fool found out that this thread (Google 17 of 121k on Jan. 16, '06 for: manganese nodules) is famous. I often google with double quotes, and found us at G16 of 48k on Jan. 18 for: "manganese nodules". We're climbing already
.-Bob
Johnny, I'm hanging out in the BEL forum waiting for ThePhy's final reply to my offer to debate my Summit Clock illustration against the notion of time being relative. In the meantime, I'm glad to answer your question:
No. Of course not. Just because one or some nodules formed rapidly, does not mean that all must have formed rapidly. That should be obvious.
And equally obvious, if some nodules have formed rapidly as marine geologist Yates stated rather matter-of-factly, then previously published claims of required eons should be re-evaluated before being dogmatically retained. (That's the obvious part that your side rejects.) And if those previously published claims (before the brewery nodules were found) did not show insight by indicating also conditions under which rapid formation would occur, then those claims are further put in doubt.
Thus at least until such re-evaluation occurs, Old Earthers should, at least tentatively, remove nodulate formation from their Old Earth Evidence Column.
-Bob Enyart
Johnny said:
No. Of course not. Just because one or some nodules formed rapidly, does not mean that all must have formed rapidly. That should be obvious.
And equally obvious, if some nodules have formed rapidly as marine geologist Yates stated rather matter-of-factly, then previously published claims of required eons should be re-evaluated before being dogmatically retained. (That's the obvious part that your side rejects.) And if those previously published claims (before the brewery nodules were found) did not show insight by indicating also conditions under which rapid formation would occur, then those claims are further put in doubt.
Thus at least until such re-evaluation occurs, Old Earthers should, at least tentatively, remove nodulate formation from their Old Earth Evidence Column.
-Bob Enyart
Indeed.
Previous published claims were re-evaluated and thats why deep-sea nodules are still considered slow forming. I'll cite some papers from the past 10 years if it makes you happy. I'm certain that the question was asked: "if this lake-bed is 10,000 years old and we just found manganese nodules, maybe we should recheck the deep-sea nodules". But as you now realize, fast forming nodules have been studied since at least the 70s (though I have seen dates on references as far back as 1948).
So Mr. Enyart, here you're claiming that there has been no re-evaluation. Yet I can point to dating methods that weren't developed until after the discovery of young nodules. These dating methods have been used on deep-sea manganese nodules. So then it's fairly obvious that as newer and newer techniques are being developed, old ideas are being checked and rechecked. In addition to this, I can post at least 10 papers published on deep-sea manganese nodule formation in the past decade alone--well after the discovery of "young nodules". Perhaps then, if you wish, I can find you a paper thats more recent than 1999 detailing the dating and growth rates of deep-sea nodules. This would indicate that deep-sea nodules are still being evaluated after the beer-can nodule (if it even exists).
Remember claiming, "What evidence did they have that these form over millions of years? I guess they had none." Well, that was wrong. They have a lot. "Knee-jerk claims of old age?" Nope, sorry.
Last edited:
Question for Johnny.
How do you know that the papers written since the discovery of young nodules went through a process of serious re-evaluation?
BTW, it seems to me that the fact that so many of the nodules can be seen lying on the surface of the seabed would cause a serious re-evaluation of the "millions of years" idea even if the beer/soda can finding were ignored.
How do you know that the papers written since the discovery of young nodules went through a process of serious re-evaluation?
BTW, it seems to me that the fact that so many of the nodules can be seen lying on the surface of the seabed would cause a serious re-evaluation of the "millions of years" idea even if the beer/soda can finding were ignored.
Caution
Caution
How can you answer my question this way? You assert confidently that the scientific community has "re-evaluated" formation rates (after finding the brewery nodules), yet you still doubt the very existence of such nodules. If you can't find the source for the brewery nodules, what makes you think the authors of recent papers could? (It's not the kind of find that helps generate grant money.) So, how could you be so sure that serious "re-evaluation" of the formation rates occured? I think you should be more cautious, and agree that until more in known, you will not claim MNs require millions of years to form.
Agreed?
Caution
Johnny said:
How can you answer my question this way? You assert confidently that the scientific community has "re-evaluated" formation rates (after finding the brewery nodules), yet you still doubt the very existence of such nodules. If you can't find the source for the brewery nodules, what makes you think the authors of recent papers could? (It's not the kind of find that helps generate grant money.) So, how could you be so sure that serious "re-evaluation" of the formation rates occured? I think you should be more cautious, and agree that until more in known, you will not claim MNs require millions of years to form.
Agreed?
And from another thread:
And from another thread:
-Bob Enyart
And from another thread:
Jukia said:
Bob Enyart said:
And then Johnny responded to my posting of these three quotes:Johnny said:
I quoted you both to show two data points in what I consider a trend. Your underlined defense of your answer is a non sequitur. There is a body of evidence, and then there are different interpretations, and people classify evidence as supportive of one interpretation or another. Your refusal to unequivocally admit this is _______fill in the blank___________.Johnny said:
-Bob Enyart
Originally Posted by Bob Enyart
BEQ1b-J: Two views exist regarding the age of the earth: young earth, and old earth. Also, human beings make careful observations of the world, and those observations will be interpreted differently by adherents of the opposing views of YE and OE. Do you agree that those who hold either view on the age of the earth can sort that evidence into Evidence Columns, one of which is titled Young Earth Evidence, and the other of which is titled Old Earth Evidence. Of course, either side may wrongly categorize evidence. But I’m asking you: is this paradigm valid for evaluating evidence for the age of the earth?
Bob;
please note.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dicotomy
BEQ1b-J: Two views exist regarding the age of the earth: young earth, and old earth. Also, human beings make careful observations of the world, and those observations will be interpreted differently by adherents of the opposing views of YE and OE. Do you agree that those who hold either view on the age of the earth can sort that evidence into Evidence Columns, one of which is titled Young Earth Evidence, and the other of which is titled Old Earth Evidence. Of course, either side may wrongly categorize evidence. But I’m asking you: is this paradigm valid for evaluating evidence for the age of the earth?
Bob;
please note.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dicotomy
fool, I didn't click on your link. I know what a false dichotomy is. And there isn't one in my question.
-Bob Enyart
-Bob Enyart