Faid

OK, let's see this under a somewhat "AFDavian" perspective, shall we?





METEOR-IMPACTIONISTS GET THEIR FACTS MIXED UP AGAIN

So... Scientists once thought it was a meteorite that caused the explosion, then they changed their minds and thought it was a comet, and now they return to the old paradigm! Hah! They obviously have no idea what they are talking about.

This is no rocket science, folks. The Tunguska explosion was a UFO crash. face it, it's the only theory that makes sense of all the data.
Now, you may go on about how absurd and without support or aaany evidence whatsoever that is, yada yada... Well you know, you might try to laugh at me, but they also laughed at Newton and Galileo and Velikovski and Daniken and all those other colleagues of mine... er, those prominent scientists.

I admit I have not studied impact physics or atmospheric meteor shatter or any of all that fancy-sounding stuff... but I do know that mainstream scientists have been HORRENDOUSLY wrong about major things in the tunguska explosion in the 20th century. So it's going to take some serious effort on your part to convince me of your "meteor impact" story here.

You have presented nothing to show that "meteor impact" is effective at creating such explosions as in Tunguska. Contrast that with the fact that I have now given you two examples (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) of "nuclear explosion" being VERY effective at making large explosions.

So while the explosions of nuclear reactors in high-tech alien spaceships (hee, I got to use my favorite term again) may have important differences -- I don't think either of us knows the full extent of the differences -- you have given me no reason to favor your "meteor" story.

Refute me if you can.

mung bean

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: Sounds about right.

Anyway, back to erosion and stuff.
Take a look at the AFDave theory on sedimentation, just to establish a baseline.

From this most excellent post:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/...f14821#p166286

In contrast I provided evidence in my last post that the sediment capacity of the Nile in full flood is around 6,000ppm. A slight difference, but nothing too extravagant.

Ok Dave, let's keep on with the nice little bite-sized pieces, yes? I'd hate to see you bite off more than you can chew.

I would have been interested to see Bretz's reaction to your theories.


I have already explained some of the differences between Palouse and Aswan. Bretz was ultimately vindicated because evidence was provided to back his theory. Part of the evidence was traces of massive ice dams. Tropical Africa is not the usual place to find ice dams. You need something else.
You also need to account for the differences in channel shape. The Nile at Aswan does not exhibit any traces of massive catastrophic flow. You should be able to recognise these traces by now.


Dave, that's just dumb. It should be perfectly obvious that, given enough time, a small body of water can erode it's way down. You have given no reason to prefer your scenario and as far as I can tell the evidence is against it.

Yes I do know the full extent of the differences between the Aswan granitic pluton and the Palouse columnar basalt.
I've already explained it. I made the mistake of checking. Try it.


1) Already been through that, unless you have something new.
2) Bullshit. Let's take a walk down to the other end of the Nile, Dave.
Would you or would you not agree that the Nile Delta is composed of a large bed of sediment and is still being deposited today?
It's certainly large enough to fill the Nile Valley, which is after all one of the points of this discussion.


I've never adopted them. How can I abandon them?

mung bean

Dave, I just thought of a small addition to my last post.
I'll make it really easy for ya, me ol' manky gumboot.

The difference between Palouse and Aswan is the difference between eroding a channel through a big pile of lotsa little rocks compared to eroding a channel through one huge rock. That's about as basic as I can make it.

As for your assertion that you can't see how a small body of water can erode a channel through hard rock over long periods of time, take a walk in the country and find a nice, little, cascading stream. You know, trees and chirping birdies and stuff......and channels cut into hard rock. That sort of stream.

Silent Dave

Dave, since I know you're reading this thread today, I'd like to call your attention to a message for you in the peanut gallery thread.

The message is in green.

Also, I'd like to call your attention to the OP of this thread, which was created entirely for your benefit.

Mike PSS

Mung me-old smelly sweat sock.
I'm looking at the cross-section picture of Aswan and something struck me. You show "Marine" sediments below fresh water sediments filling the canyon.

But isn't Aswan a bloody long tinkle up the Nile from the Med? Are you implying that the Nile Valley, after being cut deep, was refilled with salt water? WTF mate? That's a bloody long fjord from the Nile mouth up past Aswan.

Also, the top level of the "Marine" sediments is far below the present Med sea level. That's just backwards now. I think your pulling my third leg (unnnggghh.... uuuunnnnngggghhh....). What are you hiding here?

mung bean

Mike, me ol' rancid jock strap, teh only thing I'm hiding is me genitals.
I find if I leave them hanging out people tend to look at me strangely.

Yep, you got it right on the sediments and the "fjord". No dramas.
When the Mediterannean refilled to roughly its current level the Nile Canyon was flooded by seawater. What's the problem? So marine sediments got plonked down for a while until the alluvial stuff worked its way downstream to Aswan.
Natch, the marine sediments were below sea level. No beaches in steep sided canyons.

According to the Paleogeo guys the Nile as we know it is only about 12,000 years old. During the Plasticine (or however the fuck it's spelt. I'll look it up later) the Nile wasn't even in its present bed some of the time. I think it got bored and went for a bit of a wander. So it would have taken a while for the canyon to fill with alluvial stuff. Gotta go. Work. Bugger.

PS: Oh yeah Davey, got a present for ya. You'll have to work for it though.
There are some remnants of braided channels in Egypt. You know, characteristic trace of fast moving water and all that. I'm not telling you where they are though. You can find them yourself. The bad news is they won't help you with Aswan.

deadman_932

Want to know a BIG difference between Creationists and Harlan Bretz, Dave? Beyond the fact that he had a Ph.D. in geology?

Harlan Bretz began publishing on his view of the Channeled Scablands back in 1923. As you and your creationists buddies note, it was controversial. People argued about it. But here's the major difference, Dave:

During the three decades that it took to get his views accepted, Harlan Bretz published no fewer than TWELVE PAPERS on the topic in peer-reviewed journals

So, when Creationists claim they are "just like" Harlan Bretz, why don't we see them publishing articles in the Journal of Geology and The Geological Society of America Bulletin?
.
.
So, DAVE, how many peer-reviewed papers have ANY of your creationist buddies presented on this "global Flood" in scientific Journals in the CENTURY AND A HALF of the post-Darwin era?

Oh, the silence is deafening

See, that's the FUNNY part, Dave. Harlan Bretz was presenting a controversial theory.

BUT...HE GOT PUBLISHED.

Harlan Bretz, all by himself IN THREE DECADES had MORE publications in mainstream geological journals than ALL CREATIONIST "scientists" put together

Yeah, I find this hilarious. It highlights how LAME creationist "scientists" truly are.
Oh, and by the way, Dave, you might want to note a few other things :

1. In between the years 1923 and 1956 were two events called the Great Depression and the Second World War.

2. If Bretz had listened to J.T. Pardee in 1925, it wouldn't have taken even three decades to get accepted, because what Pardee gave Bretz was a mechanism by which the scablands were formed. It wasn't until the 1940's that Pardee himself had to go and do the fieldwork to show it. Then Bretz re-publishes in 1956, and it becomes widely accepted.

Gwen

You mean, like Biblical inerrantists have been HORRENDOUSLY wrong about major things in their field for the last, er, however long they've been trying to use the Bible to view the world?

Occam's Aftershave

Hey Dave, have you taken the 15 seconds to Google "formation of limestone" yet? What were the results?

Can you please explain in your own words, so I'll know you understand it? Thanks!

Mike PSS

Qatarra depression maybe? Am I close?