Gradualism Versus Catastrophism Part One
Sharks have small brains. They haven't changed much for millions of years, they could be conservatives.
The Superlative Quasar (the red dot near center). Credit: ESO/UKIDSS/SDSSFifty 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.
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
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.
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.
Standing petrified forests in coal deposits are not uncommon but certainly not the product of slow deposition.
...makes one ponder...
BTW Antarctica was not ice free during recorded history.
Cool. Same with the Oronteus Finaeus map?
Stumbled across it myself...
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.Somehow I doubt that "stumbled" is quite what you did.
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?
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.
Nope. I don't think I'd have admitted that, if I were you.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Is that clear? Or do I have to do that again?