Real Science Friday: Origin of Limestone with Walt Brown

[Vaquero45]

I wasn't talking about Y's opinion.

Regardless, this is for Jukia who has a long history of pretending to be conversant on things science, but who never adds anything to an actual conversation about science.

You take that back Stripe!
Jukia has crushed us countless times with that brilliant juggernaut argument.... "learn some science".
What else do you need man!?

 

[Stripe]

You take that back Stripe! Jukia has crushed us countless times with that brilliant juggernaut argument.... "learn some science". What else do you need man!?

Capitalisation? :idunno:



:mock: Jukia.

 

[Stripe]

I realize you prefer to go after Jukia personally as opposed to pursuing the more important question of whether or not Walt Brown does have weaknesses in some of what he says. You do what you are best at and have at Jukia, and meantime I will wait and see if anyone will respond to the Mammoth question.

Or how about we - shock and horror - talk about something related to this thread instead of constantly having to plug the rabbit holes the atheists want to dart down. :thumb:

 

[DavisBJ]

Or how about we - shock and horror - talk about something related to this thread instead of constantly having to plug the rabbit holes the atheists want to dart down. :thumb:

This rabbit hole: "Please show us one piece of data Dr. Brown has that is inaccurate." was dug by you personally. If you didn't mean it, you shouldn't have asked it.

Sorry if you might have opened the door to a chink in Walt's armor, but I didn't open the door, and I am not the one that questioned Walt's claims about Mammoths. But since you have an inordinate love for Walt Brown's ideas, I would think (if you were honest) that you would want to get to the bottom of the Mammoth issue.

 

[Jukia]

Jukia, you know that the peer reviewed journals that you value have editorial policies that refuse creation articles from consideration.

Walt's written briefly about this difficulty, and his long-standing well-publicized debate offer, at:

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ429.html

Besides, now that scientists have excavated a T-rex with soft-tissue, and a hadrosaur with blood vessels and connective tissue, and a supposedly 155-million year old squid fossil with liquid ink (not dehydrated), etc., etc., don't you think it's worth taking an open-minded look at both sides of the age of the earth issue?

Jukia, the evidence will continue to grow...

got a cite to the squid ink paper in the real literature?
As an aside, a google search suggests that people have been writing with fossilized squid ink since the mid 1800's so it does not seem to be a new thing. however, I was unable to find the incident suggested by Pastor Enyart nor does it seem that anyone I did find actually found million year old squid ink in liquid form.

In addition, while it may take a while for me to find the T rex info and the hadrosaur info my recollection is that the papers are not as "strong" as Pastor Enyart might want them to be.

 

[voltaire]

------the heat released would be enormous. Under what conditions could the ocean not evaporate with such heat? I already subscribe to accelerated radioactivity but all that activity starts at the core of the hearth and is spread out over roughly 250,000 years. The effects of the heat in that situation are not nearly as severe as creating all the inorganic limestone within the oceans in the space of one years time.

 

[Frayed Knot]

Jukia, could you name any leading peer reviewed scientific publication that would publish a paper claiming evidence against evolution and for creation, let's say that was written by Nobel-prize winning Richard Smalley, who co-discovered buckeyballs?

Pardon me for butting in, but I have no doubt that any well-done science which reached conclusions that were actually supported by the evidence would be published in any major journal.

 

[Bob Enyart]

How would I recognize a peer-reviewed paper that claimed evidence for creation?

DBJ, I'd say if the authors claimed their paper provides evidence for creation.

-Bob

p.s. Testimony against interest, as in a thousand published pro-evolution articles, don't cut it. That's just the lot of being a Darwinist.

 

[Stripe]

This rabbit hole: "Please show us one piece of data Dr. Brown has that is inaccurate." was dug by you personally. If you didn't mean it, you shouldn't have asked it.

You have data you think is inaccurate, I'm all ears. :up:

Sorry if you might have opened the door to a chink in Walt's armor, but I didn't open the door, and I am not the one that questioned Walt's claims about Mammoths.

But you seem inordinately interested in this little distraction (named Jukia). :think:

Don't you think this is all a little silly?

But since you have an inordinate love for Walt Brown's ideas, I would think (if you were honest) that you would want to get to the bottom of the Mammoth issue.

Sure. Pastor Enyart and Fred Williams discuss the issue in today's show. Feel free to do some research and see if you can't find a piece of data used by them or Dr. Brown that you consider wrong.

But can you keep this to the appropriate thread? :thumb:

 

[Stripe]

Peer reviewed journals expect to have papers with accurate data in them. Dr. Brown's inability to publish in the scientific literature has less to do with his creationist position than the fact that his theory is total nonsense.

So, Jukia. We know you are not likely to ever present anything worthwhile to a science discussion, but do you actually have an example of data that you consider inaccurate from Dr. Brown?

 

[Bob Enyart]

no doubt?

no doubt?

Pardon me for butting in, but I have no doubt that any well-done science which reached conclusions that were actually supported by the evidence would be published in any major journal.

Frayed, boy are you out of touch with the publication policies of today's science journals. Wow. I was on a fossil dig with an editor of a Smithsonian publication who was fired for permitting publication of an intelligent design article.

Wow, yes, I think you're out of touch. You can brush up on this topic if you wish with:
- my interview of the author of the massive work, Slaughter of the Dissidents, and
- you can check out my interview of the executive producer of Ben Stein's movie Expelled, which documented examples of heavy-handed intolerance of intelligent design scientists.

-Bob

 

[DavisBJ]

You have data you think is inaccurate, I'm all ears. :up:

I realize you have a comprehension problem, but I will try again. There is another poster in these forums that pretty consistently defends the YEC side. Goes under the TOL name of Yorzhik. Heard of him? He is on your team. But he had the honesty a while back to comment that Walt Brown was in error on some of what he says about Mammoths.

So you can continue for the next 40 years to to try to make it sound as though I was the one that said I had information against Walt’s ideas on Mammoths. Yorzhik, though I disagree with his theology, is normally far less inclined towards mockery and character assassination than you are, and is more amenable to impartial discussions. I think it highly likely that he is watching this thread, and I would hope he would come clean and explain what prompted his statement saying that Walt was in error on some Mammoth claims.

But you seem inordinately interested in this little distraction (named Jukia). :think:

You are the one who declared you had your sights set on Jukia, not me.

Don't you think this is all a little silly?

Not at all. The mammoth issue is a direct response to your question for errors in Walt Brown’s position. If you now think it is silly, then run away from the discussion, with the realization that one of your YEC companions does question some of Walt’s credibility.

Sure. Pastor Enyart and Fred Williams discuss the issue in today's show. Feel free to do some research and see if you can't find a piece of data used by them or Dr. Brown that you consider wrong.

I just listened to the show. Sounds to me like Yorzhik has a bit of an issue with what Enyart and Fred Williams said. If I come across specific issues relating to what Walt says about Mammoths, I will let you know.

But can you keep this to the appropriate thread? :thumb:

I realize you probably regret your casually tossing out the challenge on errors in Walt Brown’s work. But it is hardly fair or honest for you to ask for information about Walt Brown, and then yell at me when I address the very question you authored. If this is really a burr under your saddle, then you can let it drop.

 

[Bob Enyart]

I was unable to find the incident suggested by Pastor Enyart nor does it seem that anyone I did find actually found million year old squid ink in liquid form.

Jukia, there are links to various sources for our List of Not So Old Things at KGOV.com/list.

And there for the 155-million year old still liquid squid ink story, there's a link to the wikipedia article and this one at dailymail.co.uk with this photo:



-Bob

 

[voltaire]

My last post was in regard to stripes statement to me that it was indeed possible to form all the inorganic limestone we see today in the space of one year. As for a creationist publishing in peer reviewed journal, it can be done under the following conditions. Do not state you are a YEC. Do not state your evidence supports a very young earth. Do not mention God or the bible. Cloak your paper in evolutionary jargon. I am starting college this summer in the field of geology. I will soon discover what limits there are to my freedom of speech and just how much cloakingis necessary.

 

[Stripe]

My last post was in regard to stripes statement to me that it was indeed possible to form all the inorganic limestone we see today in the space of one year. As for a creationist publishing in peer reviewed journal, it can be done under the following conditions. Do not state you are a YEC. Do not state your evidence supports a very young earth. Do not mention God or the bible. Cloak your paper in evolutionary jargon. I am starting college this summer in the field of geology. I will soon discover what limits there are to my freedom of speech and just how much cloakingis necessary.

Try putting Psalm 95:4 on the front of a Sedimentary Geology paper. See if that gets any response.

 

[Jukia]

Try putting Psalm 95:4 on the front of a Sedimentary Geology paper. See if that gets any response.

Most peer reviewed journals are looking for science. Not unsupported theology from your favorite book.

 

[Jukia]

Jukia, there are links to various sources for our List of Not So Old Things at KGOV.com/list.

And there for the 155-million year old still liquid squid ink story, there's a link to the wikipedia article and this one at dailymail.co.uk with this photo:



-Bob

I think I asked for a citation to the real literature. When my pain meds from recent surgery wear off perhaps I'll be able to look, more likely I'll just continue w the paid meds, but in the meantime, if you or anyone else do have a reference to the actual work I would appreciate that.
Thanks. (and note that I expect a "You're welcome" from your acolyte Stripe but do not expect any further information from either of you).

 

[Stripe]

Thanks.

I'm sure you're welcome.

 

[Yorzhik]

I realize you have a comprehension problem, but I will try again. There is another poster in these forums that pretty consistently defends the YEC side. Goes under the TOL name of Yorzhik. Heard of him? He is on your team. But he had the honesty a while back to comment that Walt Brown was in error on some of what he says about Mammoths.

So you can continue for the next 40 years to to try to make it sound as though I was the one that said I had information against Walt’s ideas on Mammoths. Yorzhik, though I disagree with his theology, is normally far less inclined towards mockery and character assassination than you are, and is more amenable to impartial discussions. I think it highly likely that he is watching this thread, and I would hope he would come clean and explain what prompted his statement saying that Walt was in error on some Mammoth claims.
You are the one who declared you had your sights set on Jukia, not me.

Not at all. The mammoth issue is a direct response to your question for errors in Walt Brown’s position. If you now think it is silly, then run away from the discussion, with the realization that one of your YEC companions does question some of Walt’s credibility.

I just listened to the show. Sounds to me like Yorzhik has a bit of an issue with what Enyart and Fred Williams said. If I come across specific issues relating to what Walt says about Mammoths, I will let you know.

I realize you probably regret your casually tossing out the challenge on errors in Walt Brown’s work. But it is hardly fair or honest for you to ask for information about Walt Brown, and then yell at me when I address the very question you authored. If this is really a burr under your saddle, then you can let it drop.

Walt claims the antediluvian earth is right below the Mammoths (and the other animals found in the same situation). However, I think there is too much oil in that area, indicating water laid sediments. Also, despite the great amount of ice chunks reentering earth's atmosphere, it couldn't have cooled the air enough to allow enough super-cold ice to make it too the earth to create such a vast ice field.

Is there another plausible explanation? There is. After the flood there was an ice age due to warm oceans, and relatively cool continents (and perhaps an earth now tipped on it's axis?). After many years of giving up its water to land, the temps began to equalize and the ice started to melt back into the seas. Not only did this cause the oceans to rise, but storms now swept across great glacier plains covered in fine dust. And so instead of blowing just air, storms were now picking up this fine dust, which in some cases, were big enough to bury even big animals. This would have happened 100? years after the flood? This would line up with the continents being divided by the rising waters in the days of Peleg.

I think Dr. Steve Austin and Dr. Morris of ICR hold this view if my memory serves me.

I've talked with Bob about this in person. But the disagreement isn't worth a call into his show. I only call Bob and air a disagreement in public if it is a bigger. Bigger disagreements make for better radio; I just hate calls into talk shows where the person doesn't do much besides agree with the host.

 

[Stripe]

Has this thread moved on enough to warrant this dramatic change in topic? :chuckle:

Walt claims the antediluvian earth is right below the Mammoths (and the other animals found in the same situation). However, I think there is too much oil in that area, indicating water laid sediments.

The permafrost deposits are very thick, aren't they?

Also, despite the great amount of ice chunks reentering earth's atmosphere, it couldn't have cooled the air enough to allow enough super-cold ice to make it too the earth to create such a vast ice field.

The ice is maintained today because of the temperatures at that latitude.

Is there another plausible explanation? There is. After the flood there was an ice age due to warm oceans, and relatively cool continents (and perhaps an earth now tipped on it's axis?). After many years of giving up its water to land, the temps began to equalize and the ice started to melt back into the seas. Not only did this cause the oceans to rise, but storms now swept across great glacier plains covered in fine dust. And so instead of blowing just air, storms were now picking up this fine dust, which in some cases, were big enough to bury even big animals. This would have happened 100? years after the flood? This would line up with the continents being divided by the rising waters in the days of Peleg.

At a glance, I don't buy it.

I think Dr. Steve Austin and Dr. Morris of ICR hold this view if my memory serves me.

They would. :chuckle:

I've talked with Bob about this in person. But the disagreement isn't worth a call into his show.

Yeah. It's an interesting one though. :up:

I only call Bob and air a disag`reement in public if it is a bigger. Bigger disagreements make for better radio; I just hate calls into talk shows where the person doesn't do much besides agree with the host.

Oh, I don't know about that either. I like those calls.