Exposing the lies in Jorge's Flood "evidence".

[rogue06]

He still published it. Presumably he believes based on other arguments that the YE is correct. Science is filled with such things, rogue, where open questions remain and must be settled later. It isn't wrong to suggest a possible way to settle it as an avenue for later research. And frankly his wording there isn't even clearly a conclusion as I read it; it's ambiguous.

You seem to be determined to avoid the point. In science you don't reach a conclusion and then go out in search of evidence that supports that predetermined conclusion tossing aside everything else. I'm not saying that some scientists have never done this but rather those who do are not doing science.

And yes, I've seen all the arguments before, but none of that works if they already conclude from sound support that the view is correct before taking the job. They are statements of faith, without commenting on HOW you arrived at the belief. As long as you're honestly certain beforehand, it is not a problem. It is much more honest than OE organizations which, rogue, do the same thing, but aren't up front about it.

And then if somebody becomes convinced the organization's position is wrong after all, guess what?

They can quit.

*SIGH* It is irrelevant whether or not they agree with the predetermined conclusion. Obviously they do or they wouldn't be writing for these organizations. The point is that they are not conducting science when they agree to these terms and should not pass off what they do as such.

I'm one person replying to many people. I don't have time to sit here and reply to each post seconds after it's posted. That just comes with the territory. Another unreasonable complaint, rogue...

Hardly. It is no more difficult to make individual posts to respond to different posters than it is to shovel them all into one long very difficult to follow post. Especially when you were refusing to use the Reply to format. That forced posters to hunt through a wall of text looking for the response they were interested in.

There is a reason that multiple posters kept asking you to cease doing that. Unless you think they were all be unreasonable and you were the only person who wasn't

[logician bones]

You seem to be determined to avoid the point.

So I could say to you, because:

In science you don't reach a conclusion and then go out in search of evidence

And I just pointed out to you why this is not that, and that the main drivers of the OE view do that, apparently. If not, then they need to provide sound arguments; they need to move on past the horrible arguments that have been used before and that are why reasonable investigators often conclude the OE is not proven, or worse. And the somewhat good arguments already known need to be brought to an indisputable close on the parts still uncertain. The issue is, this has seemingly been done in reverse in support of the YE. No amount of parroting of the fundy "they just hide all the evidence" excuse to ignore evidence is going to change that...

I'm not saying that some scientists have never done this but rather those who do are not doing science.

That part's fair, though. But given the evidence shown so far, it does appear very likely that OE scientists, for the most part, have done this, and most credible YEs have not. Apparently people like Morton did, as he was evidently not really convinced when he worked for... ICR I think it was, right? But keep in mind that similar criticisms as you're trying have been leveled at OE organizations. Unless they can show conclusive evidence to support their conclusion, we cannot really know who did the science correctly, so this is really just another distraction from the real issue. If it came down to this kind of argument, a layman would have to simply flip a coin or rely on some kind of fallacy like ad populum to decide which one's criticism of the other is right.


Notice I cited some arguments, especially the smectite one, that if wrong should be shown why they're wrong, but instead of being given substance on that so far, it is being ignored. The same argument could be posted outside of such an organization (but you would probably never see it, so these organizations do appear to need to exist to get the word out, due to the abuse of the peer review system, etc.) -- it needs to be debunked, if it's wrong, on evidence. And often the parts of their reasoning will cite science agreed to by both sides (like, apparently, the smectite argument), so this tactic carries no weight at all in trying to avoid that. It looks very much like, as I said, trying to ignore the evidence simply by accusing the other side of doing that (AKA projection).

*SIGH* It is irrelevant whether or not they agree with the predetermined conclusion. Obviously they do or they wouldn't be writing for these organizations. The point is that they are not conducting science when they agree to these terms and should not pass off what they do as such.

Rogue, there's a huge difference between a conclusion based on support, and a predetermined conclusion. YEs show strong arguments that it's the former.

There is a reason that multiple posters kept asking you to cease doing that. Unless you think they were all be unreasonable and you were the only person who wasn't

I said it's somewhat reasonable. I wanted to try out a more normal, easier format and see what reactions were. Adrift raised reasonable points on that (and politely). I'll work on it. Yes, at least one in the past was being unreasonable. ;) And I pointed out why.

[oxmixmudd]

He still published it. Presumably he believes based on other arguments that the YE is correct. Science is filled with such things, rogue, where open questions remain and must be settled later. It isn't wrong to suggest a possible way to settle it as an avenue for later research. And frankly his wording there isn't even clearly a conclusion as I read it; it's ambiguous.

And yes, I've seen all the arguments before, but none of that works if they already conclude from sound support that the view is correct before taking the job. They are statements of faith, without commenting on HOW you arrived at the belief. As long as you're honestly certain beforehand, it is not a problem. It is much more honest than OE organizations which, rogue, do the same thing, but aren't up front about it.

And then if somebody becomes convinced the organization's position is wrong after all, guess what?

They can quit.

And frankly, the real hand waving is the ignoring of the evidence just because an organization with such a statement of faith reported it.


I'm one person replying to many people. I don't have time to sit here and reply to each post seconds after it's posted. That just comes with the territory. Another unreasonable complaint, rogue...


That's reasonable to a point, rogue, but then you also didn't have to comment. If I don't have time to follow a topic but I still want to participate, I'll wait until I have some free time, review, and if I've followed it, post. You'll actually make for a less confusing discussion if you do that as we won't waste space on rehashing things already clearly stated (making the topic even longer).

Why do you find it difficult to just use the quote button where you have the text of the response above you and you can just reference it directly as you type? I would think doing what you are doing would be the more difficult and time consuming process. You've got to go back and forth between the posts or have another windows where you can skim around and then annotate which comment applies to which person, and then the person you are responding to has to go back and find what it is you are referencing, especially if they wish to add something to what has been said by another and replied to by you?

It's not going to take you any more time, and It's easier on everyone else - would it not be the gracious thing to do to try it once or twice?

Not hostile, just don't understand where the problem lies on your end.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Unlikely.

Dude. Why is your signature so HUGE? Jeezow man, it's bigger than your actual post.

It served a more useful purpose when Jorge was still around. I'll see what I can do to make it more 'economical' this weekend

Jim

[logician bones]

Why do you find it difficult to just use the quote button where you have the text of the response above you and you can just reference it directly as you type?

We're talking about when it's several pages of posts to catch up on, as has been happening in this topic. If I didn't have extra time today I probably would have had to ignore most of this as it's all off-topic. I do a lot of work on the computer and making things more efficient is always wiser in my experience. That said, again, Adrift pointed out a factor I wasn't aware of that makes the alternative more efficient. So I've changed my mind. Still gonna try to make it even easier, though. Helps prevent carpal tunnel!

I would think doing what you are doing would be the more difficult and time consuming process. You've got to go back and forth between the posts

?? Not if people didn't care about having the post URL there every time -- and outside this site, I haven't ever seen anyone demand it. It isn't normally an option, and people manage to follow discussions just fine without it.

or have another windows where you can skim around and then annotate which comment applies to which person, and then the person you are responding to has to go back and find what it is you are referencing, especially if they wish to add something to what has been said by another and replied to by you?

Which wouldn't be a problem if they were following the topic closely as is best. But that horse is dead, so oh well.

It's not going to take you any more time, and It's easier on everyone else - would it not be the gracious thing to do to try it once or twice?

Not hostile, just don't understand where the problem lies on your end.

Jim

That's fair. I was skeptical of the earlier arguments as they were coming from people who weren't even following discussions of subjects they had raised themselves... Didn't exactly motivate me to want to cater to them, you know? But I figured better complaints would probably come in. Didn't have time to focus on it.

Edit:

For whatever it's worth, I kind of like your sig LOL. But if Jorge's moved on (as I expected he would), probably best to change it, yeah.

[Adrift]

It served a more useful purpose when Jorge was still around. I'll see what I can do to make it more 'economical' this weekend

Jim

Oh is Jorge gone now?

[KingsGambit]

Oh is Jorge gone now?

Not by choice.

[rogue06]

Not by choice.

No, it was by choice. He had been threatening about leaving for a couple years only to return in about a month or less. This time it has been several months.

[Kbertsche]

Logician bones replies:

... one by one all of you have made seriously questionable decisions, such as ox just adding an Amen to Kbertsche's ridiculous post denying universally accepted fact about time dilation, which Kb is now trying to get away with avoiding a retraction on by hoping I won't notice him trying to avoid the question. [Edit: Apparently?]

1) Where did I deny a "universally accepted fact about time dilation"?
2) Does being "universally accepted" make an idea "true"?
3) Are you sure that your understanding of "universally accepted facts" is correct? (You've given us plenty of evidence to the contrary.)

I have tried to explain concepts and ideas to you, but to no avail. I doubt that further attempts will fare any better.

Kb:

Keyword bolded! You acknowledge that there will be a slight difference in this case? Yes or no?

It all depends on the local gravitational environment. A clock which is in a gravitational potential well will run slightly slower than one which is not.

And a galaxy creates its own gravity well. No? Are you really going to deny this??

Each individual massive body creates its own gravitational potential energy well. It does this whether it is part of a galaxy or not. The energy wells from multiple bodies overlap slightly. They do this more so where massive bodies are closer together, e.g. in a galaxy.

Thus a clock inside our galaxy and far from any massive object will actually run slightly faster than a clock outside our galaxy but near a massive object.

Obviously. Which is why I clearly asked you about a case not like that. Stop dodging. Yes or no?

The case that you asked about was not very well-defined, as I recall. Thus the correct reply can only be "it depends".

If you say it's no, then how far away does gravity stop having any effect at all no matter how slight? AKA, what's "local"?

Gravity always has a slight effect, of course. The former planet Pluto has a slight effect on you as you stand on the surface of the earth. But you'll never be able to notice or measure the effect.

Gravity never stops "having any effect at all no matter how slight"; this is true both inside and outside of a galaxy. But since the gravitational potential falls off as 1/r, nearby massive bodies have a much, much larger effect than distant bodies.

If you want to compare specific locations and situations, you will need to actually make some estimates and do the math. But before you do this, you need to understand the concepts. And then you need to understand how to do math.

Kb:

Could you clarify your advice to use Wikipedia?

There is a good answer here, just checking whether you're using it... I would never recommend it without serious qualification, and you didn't include any...

?? Wikipedia is often unreliable for controversial topics and for highly technical topics. But for general background knowledge and surveys of a subject, it is usually pretty good.

[logician bones]

Kb, thanks for replying in more detail. My concerns about you are lessened, but I still do have some concerns, and I'll try to explain why.

That said, please read what follows with a grain of salt, because my main concern with you was that you matched almost exactly the pattern of somebody who made an obvious blunder about a field you say you're in (and your further replies seemed to confirm it), and was trying to dodge, but at the same time I worried my wording was probably somehow unclear and you honestly misunderstood.

(To be honest, though, it was hard to see why you would. I thought I went out of my way to make it unusually clear. But sometimes I get so into these subjects I can forget to be crystal clear about every detail of what to me is basics and old news. Maybe that was the case. My main concern was making sure you knew how your reaction looked, so that if I am wrong, you wouldn't just leave me in the dark on a subject I'm very interested in!)

[The above was written after reading your whole reply. After this point was replying as I read, except mainly where in brackets and I did try to edit it a little, but this is all the time I have for today, and probably until middle of next week unfortunately... sigh.]

Each individual massive body creates its own gravitational potential energy well.

Yep -- and the object near the center of the galaxy is closer to more objects than the one farther away (and more massive in the case of core black holes).

Same as objects farther away from the center of a spherical universe.

("Same" in that the principle still applies, but obviously not same in that the distances are enormously larger etc. However, the total mass in question is also larger, and in Humphreys' model universal expansion is accepted, so the distances used to be smaller. He says he ran the math, and he included the math in his book, and with his changes to the conditions, he says it becomes sufficient in the past. At least from a layman's perspective, most of the details seem plausible, and were not touched by the critical paper I alluded to earlier.)

They do this more so where massive bodies are closer together, e.g. in a galaxy.

Yep. Which was my point. So you will retract your disagreement? [Update: Whether you want to blame me for poor word choice or not LOL. But I hope you can admit that your own word choice about a center not mattering was at best misleading as well if so?]

And if the universe is a sphere (or things to the effect), the same principle will apply on a universal scale. Right? (With the qualification that it's very slight, possibly far below our ability to detect, in the present.)

I have tried to explain concepts and ideas to you, but to no avail.

You haven't explained anything that would give a reason to disagree with galactic gravity wells, or the hypothetical well of a universe with a center. The more I've questioned you the more it appears you actually do know I was right about that...

A few more questions:

I assume you accept that the effect will become less slight the more massive the nearby object is. Right? (Presume the same distance in this question. [Clarification: I mean, scenario 1: clock near an object, scenario 2: clock at same distance but from an object of greater mass. In other words, a star will cause more dilation than Earth, for example.])

And do you recognize that the more compressed a collection of objects is, the deeper the overall gravity well?

Are you sure that your understanding of "universally accepted facts" is correct?

In theory, no, but I've been interested in the subject for quite a while and have read a lot of sources on it, secular and otherwise, and everything I said is consistent with what they have all said (and with the basic principles of how it works that even you said; distance from mass essentially). But if I'm wrong I'd really like to know why. All the more so because it's an area of interest of mine!

And I couldn't help but notice that despite claiming I'm wrong, you have given ground admitting that I was right in parts [Update: And below you appear to give all the ground back...], and have everywhere set down basic principles that if carried to their logical conclusion agree with what I said. And that you apparently dodged the question about galactic gravity wells until called on it. Surely you can see how your responses have looked suspicious?

The case that you asked about was not very well-defined, as I recall. Thus the correct reply can only be "it depends".

Well, that's why I tried to define it so you could see what it depends on. And you defined your own scenario in the same kinds of terms, just as clearly.

To be clear for those reading along, I was talking about two clocks, each near a different star. Equal mass, equal distance, the only difference being that one's star was near a galactic core, the other outside the galaxy.

This should have been an easy agreement on your part. You could easily have simply added something like "but, as you say, it isn't enough dilation in that case to explain distant starlight" just in case you were worried somebody might misunderstand, etc.

Instead, you dodged it, and instead specified the scenario of the outer clock being very close to its star while the in-galaxy one wasn't, adding an extra variable the original question intentionally avoided to remove interference. You added interference, obscuring the real issue which was a galactic gravity well. Massive red flags of intentional deception on your part, Kb. It looked like you hoped nobody would understand the terms you were using so wouldn't realize you had dodged.

Maybe it's just serious clumsiness, and I want to believe that, but can't you see how it looks?

But all that said, you've had a good answer before when it looked like you made a serious mistake. Maybe this is the same. It's just very puzzling. Why not just accept that basic, and move on to explain why a center doesn't matter on the universe scale? It was your claim. Advanced physicists evidently disagree with you on it. So I'd like to know what was behind it. Is that really too much to ask?

Gravity always has a slight effect, of course.

Always?

Then you are agreeing with me, Kbertsche. I clearly specified that it was slight. Repeatedly.

So will you now retract your claim that it doesn't matter at all whether the universe has a gravitational center?

After all, if it always has a slight effect, this should apply there too, no?



And fair qualification about WP. The clarification I had in mind is that it can be useful to look at the citations and follow them to more reputable sources. You seemed to be hinting at that, but I wasn't sure.


Also, not sure if you misunderstood or missed it, but I wondered if you would have time to try to explain in layman terms why Lisle's model is disproven? I was trying to ask you earlier if you thought you might have time for that because I'm interested in that. If you won't have time or if it can't be boiled down to non-technical terms, just say so and I'll be satisfied with that.

I'm curious because it seemed very dubious to me but Lisle also claimed it couldn't be disproven and I hadn't thought of a way to do that. So... very curious what the way is. Make sense?

[shunyadragon]

Shun:

I don't have time at the moment to look into this further, but since this was raised earlier and you didn't deal with it IIRC, have you engaged with the arguments that past cases of supposedly thick corals have been later exposed to have been only assumed to be that thick and actually weren't, or that there is evidence for Flood conditions spurring on massively accelerated coral growth? Both of these were brought up earlier when you tried to use the coral argument.

There are claims of accelerated growth, and accelerated natural processes to explain the massive amount of Chalk, corals, and other formations like coal, and it is impossible physically. For the chalk to form at an accelerated rate of of the growth and reproduction of coccolithophores it would have to hundreds if not a thousand fold reproduction rate for it too happen in thousands of years, which is of course impossible. Similar problem with coral a flood environment would end coral growth and bury it a jumble of sediment. Corals can only form in clear tropical waters over a very long time, like up to 30,000,000 years. The erosion of the volcanoe alone takes millions of years. See; http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/educati..._coral04a.html

Coal can only form in wet conditions like swamps and require thousands of years of growth of vegetation for seams of coal up to more that 20 feet thick. The environment of the coal fields is like the Amazon Basin and more favorably in a temperate climate.

Basically YEC advocates have to reject uniformitism to bizzaro degrees, especially when to comes to formation of vast salt and gypsum deposits, which will only form in arid environments with salten seas like the dead sea and Salt Lake in Utah.

Again, no argument here, just interpretation; another assurance that somehow it's only explainable by an OE. Why? Walk me through the model and why it does not explain these features. I'm especially curious about anticlines.

Anticlines and synclines form in the faulting and folding of continental drift. When pushed to the surface they erode like the Wealden anticline. This process of formation and eroion can only take place over millions of years. The cross section of the Wealden anticline illustrates how impossible it is to form in a short periods of time. See; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalk_Group for a crossection of the Wealden anticline.

Same here -- you again do not give an actual argument as to why this cannot work in the YE view. You just cite the feature, claim it somehow can only be explained by an OE, and... that's it. Volcanic activity is obviously expected in the main model, as well as erosion...

It is the amount of erosion that is a problem (like the Wealden anticline) that is the problem. The world is covered with a weathered regolith except for Steep mountains, Antarctica, and the glacially abraded regions of the North Canada and Asia. This weathered Regolith includes the soils of the world and shows no sign of world or regional flood anywhere even in the Middle East. There are many local flooding, abrading and depositions in river valley, and some glacial floods, but no evidence of a regional nor world flood. The weathered regolith takes hundreds of thousands if not millions of years to form.

Edit: Keep in mind too that they gave reasons that chalk itself is evidence against long-term erosion at these sites, as the rate of destruction of it is far too fast. So right away, short-term intense Flood erosion in places is a more likely candidate, apparently.[/QUOTE][/quote]

Flint and chert formations can only form over very very long periods of time:

Source: http://snpr.southdowns.gov.uk/files/additions/For%20how%20flint%20is%20formed.htm

The formation of flint is a complex process which began in the chalk seas millions of years ago and is, summarized below:

Organisms such as sponges (on the macro scale) and radiolaria/diatoms (on the micro scale) use silica from sea water to manufacture the biogenic opal which forms their skeletons. When the organisms die and the organic parts decay the microscopic silica is scattered on the sea bed and becomes incorporated in the accumulating sediment.

At depths of 1 to 5m within this sediment, the biogenic opal breaks down, enriching the water between the sediment particles (sediment pore water) with silica.

At sediment depths of less than 10m, there is an oxic-anoxic boundary where hydrogen sulphide rising from the decomposing organic material within the sediment diffuses upwards meets oxygen diffusing downwards from the water column above. At this interface, the hydrogen sulphide is oxidised to sulphate with hydrogen ions as a by-product. The hydrogen ions lower the local pH, dissolving the chalk and thereby increasing the concentration of carbonate ions. These act as a seeding agent for the precipitation of silica.

Silica precipitates by the molecule-by-molecule replacement of chalk. The silica is initially in the form of crystalline opal but gradually transforms to quartz (flint) during later burial and with time.

The chalk sea bed is deeply burrowed by many different organisms, such as shells, echinoids and worms etc. Some of these burrows are quite deep or branching, or have open living spaces. The burrows fill with sediment after the organism has died, this is slightly different material from the sediment around it. These filled burrows act as preferential pathways (conduits) for the chemical reactions to occur. Flint formed within these old burrows often has a nodular shape which reflects the whole, or part of, overgrown remnants of such burrow systems.

There are two possible explanations for why flint forms in bands or layers. Firstly because chalk sedimentation occurs in cycles and secondly because the process above exhausts the silica within a given depth of sediment and flint formation can only recommence when there is enough silica to start the process again.

© Copyright Original Source

[logician bones]

I guess I have a little time today...

I've got the very basics of that form working. It'll crash if I hit the wrong button LOL (but I'm going to code an autosave feature, saving to an Excel sheet, a feature I've made work before so I know it can work). Might as well do a "live test", heh.

[Edit: Note that this reply will be a little out of your original order.]

There are claims of accelerated growth, and accelerated natural processes to explain the massive amount of Chalk, corals, and other formations like coal, and it is impossible physically. For the chalk to form at an accelerated rate of of the growth and reproduction of coccolithophores it would have to hundreds if not a thousand fold reproduction rate for it too happen in thousands of years, which is of course impossible. Similar problem with coral a flood environment would end coral growth and bury it a jumble of sediment. Corals can only form in clear tropical waters over a very long time, like up to 30,000,000 years. The erosion of the volcanoe alone takes millions of years. See; http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/educati..._coral04a.html

Really, Shun? That's your source? A little animation that simply describes the uniformitarian view? You still aren't engaging with the actual Flood model. "It takes that long" is referring to your own view which has no accelerated growth due to Flood conditions.

As for chalk, Woodmorappe was cited in that CMI article proving that it actually would only take a smal, easily feasible amount of growth even just during the Flood, and the final quote I showed from that AiG article showed that even this isn't necessary, as the source could have already been a massive community in the ocean, transferred onto the continent when the Floodwaters poured over it.

And you still didn't deal with the other issue I mentioned, which was that apparently there are not sites or were not at the time this was reported, where the coral is actually that thick; it was not actually measured, and later measurements showed there was more rock under it than originally assumed. The actual coral was well within expected levels for the Flood, even without accelerated growth. I was asking if you had new evidence to the contrary.

Basically YEC advocates have to reject uniformitism to bizzaro degrees

Newsflash -- it isn't bizarre that the Flood wouldn't use uniformitarian rates...

especially when to comes to formation of vast salt and gypsum deposits

Not sure about gypsum but we went over salt before, and they showed a nearby volcanic source and evidence that was the source of at least one site's salt, not evaporites. You still haven't dealt with this. And no, huge amounts of volcanic activity wouldn't be "bizarre" in a model that has new oceanic plates forming rapidly and continental ones splitting up! If anything the opposite kind of argument that others here tried is much more plausible -- that maybe there would be too much volcanic activity (and quakes and so forth) to survive.

Coal can only form in wet conditions like swamps

Wow. It's a Flood, Shun...

Aaaand this is why you have no credibility. Not sure why I even waste my time with you -- you've already admitted you will deny logic when you don't want it to get in your way. Even so, maybe it can help some reading along to hear of these factors.

And even so, I'm still holding out "hope" (as it were) that you actually are holding back something which would overturn the appearance here. But why hold it back?

Anticlines and synclines form in the faulting and folding of continental drift.

And? I quoted them saying their model relied on folding.

When pushed to the surface they erode like the Wealden anticline. This process of formation and eroion can only take place over millions of years.

You're doing it again -- just interpretation. Why? It certainly does not seem likely that rapid erosion can't happen, if slow erosion can. More water pummeling it faster SHOULD erode faster. Right?

Then you link to WP. Sigh. And of course, there's zero argument to this end there. Yeesh.

The cross section of the Wealden anticline illustrates how impossible it is to form in a short periods of time.

How?

no evidence of a regional nor world flood

We've gone over cases of evidence of it. Denial of the evidence again. You need to deal with the evidence already cited. For example, weathered rocks transported a long way from their source, in cases even secularists admit are water transport, not glacial transport. Not to mention the one this whole topic is about, and that's just for starters. I cited others in the quotes from Roy's AiG article.

The weathered regolith takes hundreds of thousands if not millions of years to form.

Interpretation once again. Not under the Flood model with accelerated rates.

Flint and chert formations can only form over very very long periods of time

Again, interpretation, just describing your OWN scenario, rather than showing why the OPPOSING model(s) can't account for it. In fact, flint is apparently a big problem for your view as well:



Once again, the OE argument depends on the unproven assumption that nothing happened faster in the past (or significantly faster), which can work as loose evidence for your view but is not even slightly conclusive (and there is tons of positive evidence already cited that many things DID go faster in the past, which is being ignored), while the same subject appears to give conclusive scientific evidence of a YE.



[Test of an obscure conditional format I shouldn't actually need:

[TEST; not a real quote]

]






Quick read of Roy's OE example:

NOTE: I used backslashes to tally the pages in each category below. The first is what I expected and described before. The second is self-explanatory, as should be the others. I might have missed a page or two in the first category, but it's basically right.

Method was to add every new page to the first category (until the obvious things like references pages) then read it to see if it should be moved down, and use every page break to trigger moving if needed and tallying the next so I wouldn't miss either step for any page (hopefully). Mentioning this because a criticism of that method as biasing for the first category could be fair, but I wanted to make sure I didn't miss pages in the total count.

Pages only containing data itself (neutral to view), summaries of view without arguments, or introductory material:

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Pages with pro-OE arguments (events not fitting well within the main YE model, just at faster rates, for example) already dealt with by YEs (known to me at this time, generally already cited in earlier discussion:

\

Pages like the above but unknown whether dealt with:

(Nothing really stood out, but one or two of the briefly mentioned technical terms could hold promise that I'm unfamiliar with??)

Pages addressing YE model:

0

Pages after changing the subject from what Roy was using this for to discussion of modern effects of the island on people and vice versa:

\

Pages of acknowledgements:

\

Pages of references:

\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Pages of full captions:

\

Pages of larger versions of maps and figures:

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\


Pull quotes showing evidence contrary to the OE view (though not interpreted that way of course):



(Notice how, as discussed before, this just happens to fit the Flood on so many counts already discussed -- other than the assigned dates of course. A rather "unfortunate" coincidence if in fact the OE is the case!)

I was curious as I read what CMI might have on Wight. Few results, none specific to the site (probably part of why Roy chose this site), but the one result that looked especially relevant (and only of those that happen to have the word "Wight" in them; many other sources contain arguments relevant to many sites) says this at the start:

Source: http://creation.com/uk-once-under-water

The teaching of geology is dominated by an irrational desire to avoid any reference to the biblical Flood when the whole world was submerged under water recently. It achieves this by burrowing into small, detached details and carefully ignoring the bigger picture.

© Copyright Original Source

Ouch. Fits Roy's example here to a tee. Studious avoidance of the obvious -- that the details they are describing in detail (the actual data itself, which YEs do not need to duplicate; they can refer to the data itself in OE sources without endorsing the obligatory OE interpretations) are uncannily like what we would expect from the Flood, surprisingly so if in fact it did not happen.

Perhaps we have our answer as to why Roy was so focused on "detail"...

Source: http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/15996/1/Hopson_IoW_Geo_History_PGEOLA-D-11-00048R1.pdf

The Triassic represents a long period of arid continental red-bed deposition over a low-relief desert plain.

© Copyright Original Source

This earned a page under the second category. But note evidence against these kinds of claims has been shown already. Arid desert sources are being assumed because of a prior commitment to the OE. Doesn't disprove them, of course, but also is not a conclusive argument at all.

Another from the same page to file under "bang head on desk" obvlivion:



And another from a page in the first category:

Source: http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/15996/1/Hopson_IoW_Geo_History_PGEOLA-D-11-00048R1.pdf

The Jurassic
succession of limestones, lime-mudstones and mudstones demonstrates a return to
fully marine conditions following the red-bed deposition of the Triassic. For the most
part sedimentation rates throughout the Jurassic kept pace with the rising sea-level

© Copyright Original Source

Fits exactly what we discussed earlier. It isn't just that one site fits the model, it's that this is showing up in case after case. Every vetted case appears to show the same.

Relevant to YE arguments:

Source: http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/15996/1/Hopson_IoW_Geo_History_PGEOLA-D-11-00048R1.pdf

There is a significant unconformity, representing a time-gap of about 15 million years,
between the youngest known Chalk on the island and the basal beds of the overlying
Reading Formation.

© Copyright Original Source

This would easily fit the model in Roy's cited AiG article. For example, one of the erosional pipes might have opened at that point and forbade significant deposition due to sideways flow.

And... that's it?!

Yeah, there was actually surprisingly very little in the way of evidential discussion of the OE scenario, Roy. I've actually seen YE sources that go into more detail, with actual evidences, beyond just the raw data that is neutral to both views (which the YEs hardly need to repeat).

The Green River (I think that's the name??) article cited in earlier discussion, although short, packed much more relevant model/view discussion based on telling details into it. Several others I've read are coming to mind, though I forget offhand which sites those were for. In this OE one... honestly, there were really only a handful of very vague mentions that might be seen as evidencing an OE, but with no actual discussion of the issue; it's just portrayed as blindly assumed.

Some of the details of things like beach sands and the like are interesting on this, but no Earth-age discussion is included with them or reasons why they couldn't fit something in the YE model. The vast majority of it simply cites the data itself, and rotely recites the ages OEs have assigned. And most of the details of the scenario layed out fit the YE model discussed already with little need for adjustment anyway.

So this really isn't helpful either.

[Kbertsche]

LB, I'll try to compose a reply to the few pertinent points in your long, rambling post in the next couple of days. But first, it seems that you are operating under a very fundamental misconception.

Earlier in this thread, you replied to me:

Again, what started this is rogue claiming without any qualification that a distant object being old ("any part of the universe" being old in any sense) didn't fit "the YEC model". That is patently, embarassingly wrong.
...
... Come on, surely you aren't this dense -- light passing through a region of space that isn't here depends on the rate of time flowing where it is. Pretty simple. ...

And by the way, this is true in even the atheist's cosmologies. Just not to the same extent and obviously not on a cosmological scale (since most go with the "no center" model). The Earth-frame "speed" of light passing through a region from our perspective will depend on the rate of time passing in the light's own reference frame. It's just that they confine this to local-scale phenomena. (Like the adjustment made in GPS satellites to account for the slight grav. dilation on Earth.) Ignoring the site reference frame and seeing it only from our own is simply not how it's done -- you are in error there as well.

You seem to think that different observers will measure different speeds for light. This is completely false. Any and every observer will measure the speed of light in a vacuum as c. It doesn't matter where the light is. It doesn't matter which reference frame the light was "born" in. It doesn't matter whether either the source or observer is in a huge gravitational potential well or not. Any observer, using his own clock, will measure the speed of any light in a vacuum as c. Period.

This is the fundamental idea of Einstein's theory of special relativity. It has been tested and verified in many different ways. It is true. I use it and rely on it daily in my job.

Thus, none of these discussions about time dilation due to gravitational potential wells matter a whit for YEC-OEC issues. We will always measure light as traveling at c in a vacuum, whether we are in a potential well or not. We will always measure distant stars as being truly distant. Gravitational potentials will not get around these measurements.

[logician bones]

You seem to think that different observers will measure different speeds for light.

Not at all. I clearly specified it's the same speed of light, and you already admitted clocks move faster farther away from a gravity well, and that light does too (because none of those things are really moving faster, but time itself is). And I clearly specified "from our perspective" there and put "speed" in quotes to further emphasize what I had said more clearly already (so you shouldn't have needed it repeated); the speed of light itself is the same. Strawman, Kb.

Again, it is not that light actually travels faster, but it has more time. This is really basic, Kb. And the whole point of Humphreys' model. Hence "time" dilation.

[Kbertsche]

...

Each individual massive body creates its own gravitational potential energy well.

Yep -- and the object near the center of the galaxy is closer to more objects than the one farther away (and more massive in the case of core black holes).

If the galaxy is more dense near the center, then this is true. But if the galaxy is of uniform density, this is not true. And if the galaxy has a non-uniform density, like spiral arms (like the Milky Way), this is not true in general.

Same as objects farther away from the center of a spherical universe.

Even if the universe had a "center", this would not necessarily be true. As with a galaxy, it would depend on the density dependence of the universe.

I have tried to explain concepts and ideas to you, but to no avail.

You haven't explained anything that would give a reason to disagree with galactic gravity wells, or the hypothetical well of a universe with a center. The more I've questioned you the more it appears you actually do know I was right about that...

Then you still aren't getting the point. The point is that the potential well of a galaxy is very, very small. The potential well of a star (and especially a black hole) dominates the potential well of a galaxy. The galaxy potential is irrelevant, compared to any nearby stars or black holes.

A few more questions:

I assume you accept that the effect will become less slight the more massive the nearby object is. Right? (Presume the same distance in this question. [Clarification: I mean, scenario 1: clock near an object, scenario 2: clock at same distance but from an object of greater mass. In other words, a star will cause more dilation than Earth, for example.])

Yes; in the scenario that you describe, your conclusions are correct.

And do you recognize that the more compressed a collection of objects is, the deeper the overall gravity well?

So long as the relative distribution of galaxies is the same in both scenarios (I.e. they are the same shape, but one is more compressed than the other) you are correct.

But again, for most situations the galaxy potential is irrelevant, for the reasons I have given above.

The case that you asked about was not very well-defined, as I recall. Thus the correct reply can only be "it depends".

Well, that's why I tried to define it so you could see what it depends on. And you defined your own scenario in the same kinds of terms, just as clearly.

To be clear for those reading along, I was talking about two clocks, each near a different star. Equal mass, equal distance, the only difference being that one's star was near a galactic core, the other outside the galaxy.

Perhaps this is what you were thinking, but it is not what you described. We cannot read your mind. Your discussion in post #151 (which is where my reply stemmed from) focused on the UNIVERSE, not on a GALAXY. And you made no mention of "equal mass" or "equal distance".