gradualism versus catastrophism


darkbeaver
#1
Thunderbolts Picture of the Day (TPOD)

Gradualism Versus Catastrophism Part One
Oct 25, 2011
Did the terrain we see around us take millions of years to form? Some recent experiments suggest otherwise.



(

Guy Berthault

: Fundamental Experiments in Stratification)
 
dumpthemonarchy
#2
Fifty years ago, all geology was real slow. One hundred million years was considered "fast". The fullness of time crowd is has competition. They didn't know about planet crashing asteroids 50 years ago for example.
 
darkbeaver
#3
"fullness of time crowd" uniformistas, they got charts ya know, if the thing don't fit the chart it duzn't exist,
 
dumpthemonarchy
#4
Tunnel vision. But at least the dinosaurs can blame their brain which was the size of a peanut. Or was it a walnut?
 
darkbeaver
#5
small brains have favoured conservatives though and many other camps on the planet operate fine without them it seems, so the brain may not be as important as we've been led to believe perhaps, it may be ancient disinformation, why can't the **** run everything?
 
petros
#6
Lmao

2.34 g/cm3(permineralized wood). 2.71 grams/cm3 (limestone).

Even fossilized wood floats......
 
dumpthemonarchy
+1
#7  Top Rated Post
Sharks have small brains. They haven't changed much for millions of years, they could be conservatives.
 
darkbeaver
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

Sharks have small brains. They haven't changed much for millions of years, they could be conservatives.

How much does it weigh though? Maybe density is a good thing.

Billions of Suns, Billions of years

Posted on January 2, 2012 by Mel Acheson
The Superlative Quasar (the red dot near center). Credit: ESO/UKIDSS/SDSS


Jan 02, 2012
If redshift (z) indicates distance, then astronomers have discovered the superlative object: the most distant, the most ancient, the most luminous, the most massive.
Analysis of the object’s spectrum shows that its lines have shifted toward the red by over 700% (z=7.1). The consensus opinion is that the object—a quasar—is therefore almost 13 billion light-years away. Since its light is presumed to have taken nearly 13 billion years to reach us, the quasar formed and became fully operational less than 800 million years after the widely publicized secular Genesis Event that most astronomers truly believe created both the universe and the coordinate system in which it is described.
To appear as bright as it does at that distance, it must be giving off about 60,000 billion times the output of the Sun. To get that much energy, 2 billion Suns must be crammed into a mathematical point called a black hole.
There can be no doubt that the presumptions are absolutely true—if you have no doubt about them. If you are one of the handful of infidels who still entertains doubts, if you haven’t undergone the institutional conditioning that reduces you to acquiescence in such opinions, you may find the beliefs fatuous.
These Pictures of the Day for the last seven years have reported the considerable evidence that contradicts the initial claim that redshift indicates distance.
If the quasar is not so far away, it’s not so big and bright and old. If redshift is intrinsic and indicates intrinsic age—age since the quasar formed—the quasar could be close, small, dim, and young. In this view, quasars appear to have a peak luminosity around z=1 and to be less luminous with increasing redshift. (See Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies by Halton Arp, p. 67-70.) That would indicate that this quasar is located within the Local Group of galaxies and perhaps is a recent ejection from the Milky Way.
Mel Acheson

(We don't know where we are or when it is,eh.) DB
 
Bar Sinister
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

Fifty years ago, all geology was real slow. One hundred million years was considered "fast". The fullness of time crowd is has competition. They didn't know about planet crashing asteroids 50 years ago for example.

Or about monstrous flash floods of the type in Idaho and Washington several thousand years ago. One thing is fairly certain, however, and that is that the creation of mountain chains takes millions of years. In that sense geological features were created through both slow and rapid processes.
 
L Gilbert
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

Thunderbolts Picture of the Day (TPOD)


Oct 25, 2011
Did the terrain we see around us take millions of years to form? Some recent experiments suggest otherwise.


And yet some actual digging shows otherwise:

NOVA | Secrets Beneath the Ice
 
dumpthemonarchy
#11
If Antarctica melts, most of us in BC will be moving to Alberta. They'll be no worries then about the tar sands I'm sure.
 
darkbeaver
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

And yet some actual digging shows otherwise:

NOVA | Secrets Beneath the Ice

I won't even bother to open the link Lester, you know it's commercial garbage in support of the Church of Science. It's nice to talk to you again, I assume your lobotomy went well.

Quote: Originally Posted by Bar SinisterView Post

Or about monstrous flash floods of the type in Idaho and Washington several thousand years ago. One thing is fairly certain, however, and that is that the creation of mountain chains takes millions of years. In that sense geological features were created through both slow and rapid processes.

Of course you avoid the obvious reality of there being no laws of physics defiled whatever with theories of near instantaneous electrical discharge mountain building. Wood can be petrified in hours. Standing petrified forests in coal deposits are not uncommon but certainly not the product of slow deposition. Antarctica was ice free in recorded history as was Greenland. I know I'm fringey but the name Greenland seems odd for a giant ice field.
Last edited by darkbeaver; Jan 3rd, 2012 at 11:57 AM..
 
Bar Sinister
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

Of course you avoid the obvious reality of there being no laws of physics defiled whatever with theories of near instantaneous electrical discharge mountain building. Wood can be petrified in hours. Standing petrified forests in coal deposits are not uncommon but certainly not the product of slow deposition. Antarctica was ice free in recorded history as was Greenland. I know I'm fringey but the name Greenland seems odd for a giant ice field.

I'm not sure where you are coming from in your reply since my post did not disagree with your previous post. What laws of physics are you talking to me about? It seems to me that a huge amount of glacial water flowing downhill is pretty much defined by the laws of physics. Petrification of wood in just hours? What evidence do you have of this, considering that all petrified wood is decades old or older? As for mountain building I doubt you are going to find an example anywhere outside of a volcanic eruption of near-instantaneous mountain building.

BTW Antarctica was not ice free during recorded history. In fact the existence of Antarctica was unproven until it was first seen by a Russian expedition in 1820. Greenland got its name from the early Viking explorers who found the southern extremities of the island free of ice when they first discovered it in the 10th Century.
 
Ron in Regina
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar SinisterView Post

BTW Antarctica was not ice free during recorded history. In fact the existence of Antarctica was unproven until it was first seen by a Russian expedition in 1820. Greenland got its name from the early Viking explorers who found the southern extremities of the island free of ice when they first discovered it in the 10th Century.

This: Earth History - Oronteus Finnaeus Map



...or this: Piri Reis map - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



...makes one ponder...

...& no, I'm not advocating little green men with Polaroid camera's
in what is thought of as prehistory. Maybe there's just more to
our history though than what we're currently aware of.
 
Dexter Sinister
+1
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

Standing petrified forests in coal deposits are not uncommon but certainly not the product of slow deposition.

Yes, common enough that they even have their own name. They're not a problem for conventional geology, and haven't been for over a century, as you'd know if you looked anywhere but at junk science sites. I won't trouble you with a link though, you wouldn't open it anyway.

Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in ReginaView Post

...makes one ponder...

And look further. For instance: Piri Reis | Search Results | Bad Archaeology It's not the great mystery it's made out to be by fools like von Daniken.

For people like DB who won't follow links to real science, here's the main conclusion:

It shows no unknown lands, least of all Antarctica, and contained errors (such as Columbus’s belief that Cuba was an Asian peninsula) that ought not to have been present if it derived from extremely accurate ancient originals. It also conforms to the prevalent geographical theories of the early sixteenth century, including ideas about the necessity of balancing landmasses in the north with others in the south to prevent the earth from tipping over (just as Hapgood later hypothesised with his crustal displacement theory).
 
Ron in Regina
#16
Cool. Same with the Oronteus Finaeus map?
 
Tonington
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar SinisterView Post

BTW Antarctica was not ice free during recorded history.

There would be no such thing as ice cores dating back to 800,000 years before present if what the dim rodent says were true.
 
Ron in Regina
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in ReginaView Post

Cool. Same with the Oronteus Finaeus map?

Stumbled across it myself at Dexter's LINK above:
The Orontius Finaeus map | Bad Archaeology
Last edited by Ron in Regina; Jan 4th, 2012 at 12:15 AM..
 
Dexter Sinister
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in ReginaView Post

Stumbled across it myself...

Somehow I doubt that "stumbled" is quite what you did. Did you read the comments below the article too? There are a couple of good examples of darkbeaver-style thinking and a cogent response from someone who actually knows what he's talking about.
 
Cliffy
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter SinisterView Post

Somehow I doubt that "stumbled" is quite what you did. Did you read the comments below the article too? There are a couple of good examples of darkbeaver-style thinking and a cogent response from someone who actually knows what he's talking about.

Your faith that there is someone who actually knows what he is talking about is almost religious. Nobody but nobody has all the information necessary to know what they are talking about. The only reason someone is intelligent is because we agree with what they are saying. Everything else is just speculation and opinion.
 
Dexter Sinister
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Your faith that there is someone who actually knows what he is talking about is almost religious.

It's nowhere close to being religious, it's entirely evidence-based, and among the people who know what they're talking about is me. Can I take it from the rest of that post that you'd agree that *you* don't know what you're talking about either?
 
Cliffy
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter SinisterView Post

It's nowhere close to being religious, it's entirely evidence-based, and among the people who know what they're talking about is me. Can I take it from the rest of that post that you'd agree that *you* don't know what you're talking about either?

Dex, take a look at my avatar. Can you take anything that guy says seriously? That is a picture of me.

And no, I do know what I'm talking about, it is just that sometimes others don't know what I'm talking about.
 
Dexter Sinister
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Can you take anything that guy says seriously?

Nope.
Quote:

That is a picture of me.

I don't think I'd have admitted that, if I were you.
Quote:

And no, I do know what I'm talking about, it is just that sometimes others don't know what I'm talking about.

How do you square that with your earlier claim that nobody has enough information to know what they're talking about? Or is this just another case of someone (me) not knowing what you're talking about?
 
darkbeaver
#24
The links to "real science" are not as easily had as what is suggested here. Sure there are easy to find big name links. Sure there are credentials, sure there is intelligence, sure they shine and glitter and publish and prosper and they certainly appear to know what they talk about , and the dramatic music is sometimes inspiring, but the same is true of junk food floggers and God whacks. So what is an aspiring explorer of the unknown to do? Well you have to suffer the trials like everyone of those pioneers who dared to question those who "knew what they were talking about" until it became blatantly and provably obvious that they didn't. With respect to the post on redshift it is perfectly clear that conventional understanding is proven wrong, without doubt. The universe is not expanding, there are no black holes and no missing matter nor energy. You can order a cold fusion generator now if you have the coin.
 
Cliffy
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter SinisterView Post

Nope. I don't think I'd have admitted that, if I were you. How do you square that with your earlier claim that nobody has enough information to know what they're talking about? Or is this just another case of someone (me) not knowing what you're talking about?

Ya see, I know that you know what you are talking about. What you are talking about is what you know. What you know is based on the data base that you have accumulated. The same applies to me. It is just that we have accumulated info from different data bases based on our interests in life. I know what I'm talking about just as much as you do, we just don't agree with what the other is saying because it doesn't fit with the conclusions we have drawn from our data bases.

Is that clear? Or do I have to do that again?
 
darkbeaver
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Ya see, I know that you know what you are talking about. What you are talking about is what you know. What you know is based on the data base that you have accumulated. The same applies to me. It is just that we have accumulated info from different data bases based on our interests in life. I know what I'm talking about just as much as you do, we just don't agree with what the other is saying because it doesn't fit with the conclusions we have drawn from our data bases.

Is that clear? Or do I have to do that again?

Of course that makes perfect sense Cliffy but it requires a broader view than what seems available to the common naysayer infesting these threads. They rely on the priesthood of any subject they investigate and in their child like innocence they refuse to believe that the priest may be a bad man.
 
Cliffy
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

Of course that makes perfect sense Cliffy but it requires a broader view than what seems available to the common naysayer infesting these threads. They rely on the priesthood of any subject they investigate and in their child like innocence they refuse to believe that the priest may be a bad man.

Don't bend down to pick up that penny in the confessional.

I think most people fear having an open mind. Their brains might fall out.
 
darkbeaver
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Don't bend down to pick up that penny in the confessional.

I think most people fear having an open mind. Their brains might fall out.

It is a sign of the times Cliffy. All the ivory towers are filled with those who surrendered to peer pressure often and early. In that way they advance on the acceptable predictable path which renders them solid religious supporters of whatever office or subject they approach. The age of spectacle wearing meek skinny little short pant wearing 32 kilo weaklings who worship giant holes in space running the world alarms real men, like us.
http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.co...r-reaction.htm
Last edited by darkbeaver; Jan 4th, 2012 at 03:26 PM..
 
L Gilbert
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

I won't even bother to open the link Lester, you know it's commercial garbage in support of the Church of Science. It's nice to talk to you again, I assume your lobotomy went well.

lol Attagirl; keep up the balanced view of issues scientific (sarcasm). Got any links of your own on the subject or do you just dismiss mine arbitrarily? If you're just being arbitrary, then so am I and any links you provide, I will arbitrarily avoid as being crap (which they usually are anyway).
Please continue to stick to your spurious versions of your quasi-science. Those of us with lobotomies will stick to reality and keep chuckling about your follies.

Quote:

Of course you avoid the obvious reality of there being no laws of physics defiled whatever with theories of near instantaneous electrical discharge mountain building. Wood can be petrified in hours. Standing petrified forests in coal deposits are not uncommon but certainly not the product of slow deposition. Antarctica was ice free in recorded history as was Greenland. I know I'm fringey but the name Greenland seems odd for a giant ice field.

Actually if you had used the link I provided, they admit that MOST of Antarctica was ice-free even during the biggest spell of warming on the planet, but not entirely ice-free. At the time there was literally no ice on Earth, there also likely was no life on it yet.
As far as your electrostatically built mountains go ..... roflmao
Not even prolonged lightning can build structures that big "instantaneously". All it can tube is build small tubes (fulgarites). About the ONLY things that can build mountains "instantaneously" are asteroid/comet/meteorite hits and volcanoes and even then, they aren't instantaneous.

Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter SinisterView Post

Yes, common enough that they even have their own name. They're not a problem for conventional geology, and haven't been for over a century, as you'd know if you looked anywhere but at junk science sites. I won't trouble you with a link though, you wouldn't open it anyway.

And look further. For instance: Piri Reis | Search Results | Bad Archaeology It's not the great mystery it's made out to be by fools like von Daniken.

For people like DB who won't follow links to real science, here's the main conclusion:

It shows no unknown lands, least of all Antarctica, and contained errors (such as Columbus’s belief that Cuba was an Asian peninsula) that ought not to have been present if it derived from extremely accurate ancient originals. It also conforms to the prevalent geographical theories of the early sixteenth century, including ideas about the necessity of balancing landmasses in the north with others in the south to prevent the earth from tipping over (just as Hapgood later hypothesised with his crustal displacement theory).

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

There would be no such thing as ice cores dating back to 800,000 years before present if what the dim rodent says were true.

Quite.
Last edited by L Gilbert; Jan 4th, 2012 at 06:26 PM..
 
Dexter Sinister
+1
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Is that clear? Or do I have to do that again?

Perfectly clear, and no you don't have to do that again, but to continue your metaphor, my database says some of the things in your database aren't correct, it contains different explanations for them than yours does, and according to the rules for critical thinking (which your database doesn't contain a full set of), they're demonstrably better ones.
 

Similar Threads

0
capitalism versus science
by darkbeaver | Aug 15th, 2009
2
V3 versus V3i
by trepex | Feb 17th, 2006
no new posts