From: Bill Payne (bpayne15@juno.com)
Date: Sun Mar 30 2003 - 21:51:10 EST
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:19:59 -0500 "bivalve"
<bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com> writes:
> Plains and plateaus are my modern analogs.
I have just completed 7 weeks of field work in the Great Plains of west
Oklahoma, and those Plains are too irregular to form the flat (plane)
strata we see in Grand Canyon and other locations of the West. We do see
mesas (tabletop mountains) which, I agree, are very flat, but not very
extensive, having been cut by erosional channels.
> Sure, they usually have
> river channels, but there is flat land between the channels that is
> eroding relatively evenly. The odds that a particular outcrop will
> have a channel running through it is less than 100 percent.
This is the weakness of your proposed mechanism. The Grand Canyon is
more than any "particular outcrop." The exposures there are tens of
miles long, some of the gaps in deposition are supposedly millions of
years, and yet the strata above and below the gaps are flat and
continuous. The only two ways I can see to accomplish these results are
by (A) sheet-flow erosion, or (B) nearly continuous deposition, i.e.,
breaks in deposition of minutes, days or possibly years, but not millions
of years.
> Ordinary rainfall will do the job nicely.
No, this will create channels and canyons - which we do see in the mesas,
but do not see in many paraconformities.
> However, this raises a
> more basic question that needs answering before this discussion can
> get anywhere. What is your flood model? You need to provide a
> coherent model and to show that it fits the evidence as well or
> better than conventional geologic explanations.
There you go, David. Michael said these arguments can't stand up to
scrunity. I have presented three arguments, two of which I yielded, but
this third one you first said you weren't motivated to research and
answer, now you have tried to respond and probably are beginning to see
that your answers are strained by the data. So you try to shift the
focus by jumping to the big picture. Michael tried to avoid this
altogether with his curt reply and his claim to be "bored" with this
argument. Both tactics, yours and Michael's, are common in these types
of discussions, and indicative of a certain insecurity.
> The fact that you
> can find problems with any scientific theory does not automatically
> mean that a particular alternative is better.
No, but if I can offer better solutions to the problems than you can,
then one begins to wonder. After all, isn't this how science is supposed
to work?
> Likewise, invoking
> the Flood to do anything they want is a popular way for Flood
> geologists to damage their scientific credibility.
First, I haven't invoked the Flood to do anything I want, and second, as
a PG, I am mildly offended (and also mildly amused) by your inference
that I have damaged my scientific credibility. In response to Michael's
challenge, I have attempted to offer empirically-based alternatives to
conventional interpretations of geology. I have yielded on two counts,
but in light of your and Michael's failure to provide reasonable support
for your view of paraconformities I am standing firm on this one until I
see a stronger defense.
> For example, why
> would the Flood produce sheet flow?
You are asking the wrong question. You should be asking if sheet flow is
the best explanation for the observations. You're letting your paradigm
drive your conclusions, rather than following the science where it leads.
> What layers were produced by
> the Flood?
Again, wrong question. You should be asking whether a Flood acting over
a short period of time or rainfall acting over millions of years would
best explain our observations of the paraconformities I have cited.
Bill
________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Mar 30 2003 - 22:18:27 EST