> Perhaps you'd like to discuss the extensive literature on sedimentary
> diagnesis. I would particularly like to know, for example, how trace
> element analysis, cathodoluminescense examination, fluid inclusion
> analysis, and oxygen and strontium isotopic values (among other things)
> support your hypothesis.
Allan Roy replied:
> Show how these analyses of the rocks disprove a catastrophe setting.
No. It's not that I couldn't -- for my PhD research, I used ICP-AES to
examine trace elements, did thin section and cathodoluminescence studies,
fluid inclusion analysis, and isotopic analysis of calcite veins in a fold-
thrust belt.
It's just that I have better things to do with my time than refuting your
idle speculations. I get no rewards, personal or professional, for debating
young-earth creationism and flood geology with people on mailing lists.
Why should I do your work for you? Don't you feel any responsibility to
educate yourself on geology since you've made a career of criticizing it? Have
you even read any papers on diagenesis? Would you even understand them? Yet
you feel free to criticize the hard work of thousands of geologists while
apparently never even bothering to learn about what you're criticizing? While
impuning their character at the same time (in previous posts). How unbelievably
arrogant!!!
You are the one proposing a radical new interpretation of Earth history which
would refute most of geology, astronomy, biology, archaeology, physics, etc.
It's therefore YOUR responsibility to present hard evidence and data supporting
your ideas. It's your responsibility to show why the thousands of studies on the
process of diagenesis in clastic rocks are wrong. It's not the job of everyone else
to prove your ideas are false. Why should they bother? As far as virtually all
geologists are concerned, people who KNOW that what you're proposing has no basis
in fact, your ideas are nothing more than classical pseudoscience. And, like all
pseudoscientists, you claim all of science is incorrect, that there's a massive
conspiracy among scientists, and demand that people prove you wrong yet you refuse
to educate yourself on what you're criticizing and never concede that you're wrong
when people do refute your silly claims.
YOU SHOW US why all the work done by all the scientists over all the years should
be thrown out of the window because of your armchair theorizing on rock formation
based upon Allan Roy's special interpretation of Genesis. Why should we not simply
regard you as a religiously-motivated crank?
- Steve.
-- Steven H. Schimmrich, Assistant Professor of Geology Department of Geology, Geography, and Environmental Studies Calvin College, 3201 Burton Street SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546 sschimmr@calvin.edu (office), schimmri@earthlink.net (home) 616-957-7053 (voice mail), 616-957-6501 (fax) http://home.earthlink.net/~schimmrich/