Re: Glenn makes front page of AiG today

Date: Fri Feb 15 2002 - 18:58:04 EST

  • Next message: John W Burgeson: "Re: Children of YEC's in Sunday School (WAS: How to discuss evol ution with friends"

    Glenn Morton wrote:
    > .... The Haymond bed is 1300 m thick and
    > only represents a small part of the entire geologic column. All the
    > fossiliferous sediments in this area are 5000 m in thickness. To do the
    > entire column in one year requires 1300/5000*365=95 days for the time over
    > which the Haymond must be deposited. This means that 157 sand/shale
    > per day must be deposited. That means that the burrowers must repopulate
    > the shale 157 times per day, dig holes, be buried, then survive the burial
    > to dig again another 156 times that day. .....

    Allen Roy responds:
    > These deposits are turbidite deposits under high energy and could easly have
    > occurred in a short time.

    Allen, you are not answering the question. You are speculating. Yes,
    it _could_ be a tsunami (given no other information), but UNIFOMITARINAN
    processes which also accommodate tsunamis OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, would
    be required. Your answer does not address the numbers.

    > The burrow holes are where the worms dug their way out after being buried
    > in the shale during the turbitide events. (not burrows down into the shale)

    This is rather odd. If they were worms, it would seem like more
    nutrients are available in the shale beds. How many worms do we
    usually find crawling in the sand?

    I am concerned that you have left out some information (that you
    personally disagree with) in the fragments you quote as your sources
    and are presenting only the part that you do agree with. You are
    entitled to disagree with views different from your own, but to
    convince other of your views, you still need to present these opposing
    views. You are then entitled to express why you disagree with those
    views with point by point commentary if necessary. That is definitely
    part of maintaining the integrity of science and _especially_ a genuine
    search for truth. If it is really true, the truth eventually does become
    clear to your readers without your use of selectivity in presentation.
    Indeed, the slightest wind of selectivity greatly lower your credibility
    in defending your position.

    by Grace we do proceed,

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 15 2002 - 18:58:38 EST