gradualism versus catastrophism

[darkbeaver]

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]

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]

"fullness of time crowd" uniformistas, they got charts ya know, if the thing don't fit the chart it duzn't exist,

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Tunnel vision. But at least the dinosaurs can blame their brain which was the size of a peanut. Or was it a walnut?

 

[darkbeaver]

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 arse run everything?

 

[petros]

Lmao

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

Even fossilized wood floats......

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

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

 

[darkbeaver]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

 

[Bar Sinister]

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]

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]

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.

...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]

Cool. Same with the Oronteus Finaeus map?

 

[Tonington]

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]

Cool. Same with the Oronteus Finaeus map?

Stumbled across it myself at Dexter's LINK above:
The Orontius Finaeus map | Bad Archaeology

 

[Dexter Sinister]

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]

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.