DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FUNDAY
HTML https://funday.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Updates
*****************************************************
#Post#: 47--------------------------------------------------
Mike Messages 1/21 - 22
By: Admin Date: January 23, 2017, 11:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
« on: January 21, 2017, 11:59:38 am »
Hi Mike.
Let me know if you want to be a member of this forum to work on
an NCGT paper together.
My idea is that you can work on the paper on your board and I
can work on it on this board, and we can compare each other's
material and copy what we like from each other. Does that sound
good? Or do you have a proposal that may work better?
So far, a lot of my material is discussions and references which
will need a lot of sorting and editing.
----------------------------
Copy of this morning's email message:
Hi Mike. NCGT encourages submitting our case if we feel we have
persuasive evidence. I shortened the list of claims as below and
I imagine we would be modifying the wording etc. Following was
my most recent message to this editor.
"Here is an outline of our proposed paper or article. Will you
let me know if any of the following would need to be changed or
not discussed?
Title:
Recentness of Planetary Resurfacing
Introduction: Scientific Method vs. Religion & Corruption
Claim #1. Sedimentary Strata Deposited in Short Time Span by
Megatsunamis
Claim #2. Late Heavy Bombardment Caused Said Megatsunamis
Claim #3. Said Bombardment Also Split Supercontinent into
Present Continents Etc
Claim #4. Most Radiometric Dating Methods Inaccurate
Claim #5. Fossils & Civilization Date to Very Recent"
----------
This was the reply I received by this morning.
"Our reviewers will judge based on rigorous scientific evidence.
If you think your paper can convince our reviewers with
overwhelming hard evidence, please submit. Please avoid
reference to religion as NCGT is a scientific journal. Regards,
Dong Choi editor@ncgt.org www.ncgt.org Canberra, Australia"
----------
I proposed mention of religion in the introduction only to
assure readers that, unlike most or all creationist arguments,
this paper will not be based on belief in any religion. I
imagine most readers would tend to suspect that such a paper
would be based on such belief, so I thought it may help to
reassure them. To avoid upsetting the reviewers, maybe a cover
letter could mention that the paper is not a Creationist paper
or something.
Mike, I'm flexible on this proposed paper. The title and any of
the claims could be stated differently. The paper could cover
all of the claims, or only one, or some. We could submit more
than one paper to cover more of the claims, if needed.
Since you have a lot more experience in writing papers and much
more knowledge of the field of geology etc, you're welcome to
take charge of the project, if you like. And I'd be glad to
assist. I'm pretty good at editing, but you seem to be better.
I've compiled a lot of material mostly from online and I've
organized it, but it needs a lot of sorting through and adding
to.
I think the main things I'd like to argue first are that the
sedimentary strata were deposited in short time spans and that
it all or nearly all occurred recently. Then a later paper or
several papers could cover the other claims. So far, my friend,
Gordon, hasn't agreed to participate, but he would nonetheless
answer questions. He's a high school science teacher, I think,
with a lot of experience in geology, especially regarding the
geology of the Northwest.
So, what do you think, Mike? Are you willing to take charge of
this project?
I started a private forum to work on the paper. I have a board
there for my work at
HTML http://funday.createaforum.com/1-3
and one
for your work, if you like, at
HTML http://funday.createaforum.com/2-5
So that's available, if you like. Or, if you have a better place
to collaborate, let me know.
You and I don't agree on everything, esp. the dating of the
cataclysms, 10kBP vs 5kBP, but I think we can deal with that
last and maybe we'll come to agreement by then.
- Good Day. Lloyd
BILIB.webs.com
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 1/18/17, mike@newgeology.us <mike@newgeology.us> wrote:
Subject: RE: Flood Basalts
To: "lloyd kinder" <lkindr@yahoo.com>
Date: Wednesday, January 18, 2017, 9:24 PM
Hi
Lloyd. That is very ambitious. Covering all
those ideas should probably be done with a number of
separate papers with substantial support since the premises
are unconventional and so cannot be assumed.
The editor's statement "Our journal is a
scientific journal. Papers need good evidence and data
to support what you say in the paper" strikes me as
cautionary. He may believe that denying the geological
timeline and evolution is unscientific.
You could show him your list of proposed sections
and ask him if any of them are off limits. If they
are, he might suggest you try for a creationist journal.
If he is okay with them, I would be glad to work with
you and Gordon. It would be good to know before
putting in a lot of effort.
Cheers,Mikewww.newgeology.us
Subject: RE: Flood Basalts
From: lloyd kinder <lkindr@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, January 18, 2017 4:41 pm
« Last Edit: January 22, 2017, 03:23:33 pm by Admin »
Re: Messages to Mike
« Reply #1 on: January 21, 2017, 12:54:41 pm »
This morning Mike said:
- The editor is setting a very high standard with "overwhelming
hard evidence".
- It is probably not possible to link the Late Heavy Bombardment
with Earth events,
- and he would likely see the introduction as editorializing,
though your intentions are good.
- 1. Linking a meteorite strike to splitting a supercontinent
- 2. and causing megatsunamis will work,
- 3. with consequent simultaneous deposition of sedimentary
strata,
- 4. as well as the initiation of the slow motion associated
with Plate Tectonics.
- 5. Radiocarbon dating of fossils buried in those strata places
their deposition in recent times. This can be done.
- As a first step, tell me what evidence you and Gordon have
assembled that applies to any of the above, and I will share
mine. If there is enough material, we can proceed.
---
I can show you a bunch of references pretty quickly, but
specific evidence will take me at least a day, maybe less than a
week, to show you in efficient form. So far I've mostly just
copied our discussions, including evidence and arguments, and
started to sort them out. But I'll try to streamline it so it'll
be easier to read and to follow the line of reasoning etc.
My idea is to do the paper in 4 parts. Each part could be
published in different issues of the journal, or maybe some or
all of the parts could be published together in the same issue.
1. The first part would start with the obvious, the general
record of the sedimentary strata, overlooking the fossils for
now. We would show that megatsunamis are the only likely means
for depositing the sedimentary strata.
2. Part 2 would show that the megatsunamis occurred recently and
that dating methods are inaccurate.
3. The third part would show that asteroid strikes caused the
megatsunamis and probably the late heavy bombardment, though we
would not need to try to prove the latter.
4. The last part would show that the same bombardment that
caused the megatsunamis also caused continental drift.
I like that sequence, because I think readers might find it the
most intriguing. They'll be learning one exciting new fact after
another, instead of all at once. So they might digest it all
better and not get too confused.
Since we're not yet agreed on how long after the Great Flood the
supercontinent broke up, I think we could present 2
possibilities. 1. It broke up a few centuries after the flood,
as your website suggests. 2. It broke up toward the end of the
flood, as I think may be most likely. Gordon may have thought it
broke up near the beginning of the flood. He thought the folding
of strata into mountains required that the strata had to be
still soft, but fluidization by impact would make solid rock
temporarily fluid anyway. The reason I think the breakup had to
occur toward the end is because the main impact seems to have
produced the iridium (& clay?) layer, which is above a thicker
(?) layer of glass spherules etc.
So I have 2 questions for you there. 1. What do you think about
having the paper in 4 parts or so as I suggest above? I'm open
to alternative arguments you may have. 2. If we don't come to
agreement on exactly when the breakup occurred before we finish
the paper, i.e. Part 4, do you think it'll be okay to present
both views?
Now to my task of assembling evidence for you.
----------
Ding-Ding
I'm done with the first part of the first step: the evidence is
at
HTML http://funday.createaforum.com/x/
I suppose my next task will be removing most of the chaff there
and identifying the primary evidence that I have & what's
needed. Guy Berthault will be an important source. I'd like to
find out if he has done any experiments that might simulate
megatsunamis. I also hope to find out what the requirements are
for lithifying sediments. I suspect that sediments mixed with
sufficient lime, as you seem to suggest, might lithify almost
like concrete with very little overburden, whereas with such
cementing agents, it would likely require enough pressure to
bring the temperature up to the melting point of sand or mud,
which doesn't seem to be even possible to great depths.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2017, 10:15:43 pm by Admin »
*****************************************************