ps418

Pitman's reply just repeats the same errors Morton debunked.

For instance, the original claim that the contacts between strata are universally flat and uniform is just flat wrong, as Morton pointed out. I don't know how you could read even an intro to geology text and not see many examples of erosional landforms preserved in the geologic record, such as angular unconformities and truncated anticlines, and buried river channels. Pitman's asking someone to explain a 'fact' that is no fact at all.

On the Coconino tracks, Pitman's own source (Leonard Brand) admits that they could have been produced subarially, on damp sand, rather than underwater. What's more, additional sedimentologic and ichnologic evidence clearly demonstrates the subarial origin of the Coconino sandstone (e.g. spider and millipede tracks, eolian cross-stratification, silicate rather than carbonate cementation, absence of marine microfossils).

Pitman clearly doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to burrows and other traces fossils. He repeats what other creationists have said about trace fossils being 'escape traces,' made by animals burrowing upward to escape sedimentation. But this is just flat wrong too. For instance, some types of burrows (e.g. diplocraterion) preserve evidence about whether or not the organism was burrowing downward (protrusive) or upward (retrusive).

The key to distinguishing upward (retrusive) from downward (protrusive) movement lies in the spreiten within diplocraterion. Spreiten can be defined as "bladelike to sinuous, U-shaped, or spiraled structure consisting of closely juxtaposed, repititious parallel to concentriuc feeding or dwelling burrows or grazing traces. Retrusive spreiten extend upward or proximal to the initial point of entry by the animal, and protrusive spreiten extend downward or distal to the point of entry."

According to Ekdale, Bromley, and Pemberton, SEPM short course 15, 1984, p. 16, upward movement causes spreiten to develop on the outer edge of the main U, whereas downward movement produces spreiten on the outside of the U. Since both protrusive and retrusive spreiten are present in many diplocraterion burrows, they cannot be regarded simply as escape traces. Thus they remain a problem.

And on top of this you have <a href="http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/hg.htm" target="_blank">hardgrounds</a> and hard-subtrates with one or more generations of borings, such as Gastrochaenolites and Trypanites, which quite obviously are not 'escape traces,' and quite obviously require a depositional hiatus too long to be fit into the flood.

An intelligent YEC? Well, if repeating dubious YEC claims you have read on the internet makes you intelligent, then yes. . .

KnightWhoSaysNi

I read Glenn Morton's original critique on T.O. and Pitman's arguments were absolutely shattered. It's amazing what a little background knowledge in geology and field experience can do to eviscerate YEC arguments. This also serves as a fine example of what cognitive dissonance and compartmentalizing beliefs from a strong religious bias can do to even an intelligent, scientifically versed person like Dr. Pitman.

His reply wasn't exactly a rebuttal, but more like questions for clarification and claiming he'll do some more research on the issues. I would like to commend Dr. Pitman for his honesty, however, in admitting to his lack of knowledge in presenting his arguments:

Pitman wrote:
[ September 21, 2002: Message edited by: Nightshade ]</p>

l-bow

Glenn Morton shattering Pitman's arguments on t.o? Sean Pitmam hasn't run away from t.o yet, and is unconvinced by Glenn's arguments. And he promises to reply to Glenn last reply. Perhaps poor Glenn needs Joe Meert, Andrew Macrae, Keith Littleton to help him?

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: l-bow ]

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: l-bow ]</p>

Skydancer

Well, no... Pitman's ridiculous arguments have been exposed for what they are. The apparent inability of Pitman - or you - to understand this doesn't change that fact.

(edited to clean extraneous coding from the quote)

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: Skydancer ]</p>

pz

...and now he's arguing about the immune system with Ian Musgrave and others. It's a shame, really. He seems more literate and significantly more intelligent than your average creationist, but he's still crippled by the same need to filter information to fit his a priori assumption that creationism is a respectable model.