Freethought & Rationalism Archive

BWE · 08-04-2007, 11:38 PM

Truth Molesters.

I want credit if it's not already coined.

Also: Reality Molesters and Sanity Molesters.

08-05-2007, 01:45 AM

Btw boys n girls, I've just found some figures on Nile sediment.
Fuck all, by world standards. Mean annual sediment load is about 200 tons.
http://www.utdallas.edu/geosciences/...ile/index.html

Now, is anyone up to figuring out how long it would take to plonk down 450 feet of freashwater sediment at Aswan?
I'm sorta thinking it'll take a while.
We'll just stick to Aswan at the moment methinks. Don't wanna scare the boy off.

Speaking of himself; Davey boy, like I said you can't compare Aswan with Palouse Canyon. Not just because the shapes of the canyons aren't comparable but also because of the different types of rock. Now thanks to Cege I was inspired to go back to RDF (oh, the good ol' days of rampant abuse and lenient moderation :angel: ) and look up your "Palouse wictory".

Here's good ol' Dead Fucker's (long may he piss down decapitated necks) opinion on Palouse Canyon columnar basalt:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/...167833#p167833

The relevant part is that at Palouse Canyon not only do we have basalt pre-fractured into smallish hexagonal columns but also the columns are quite short and interspersed with layers of loess, which is basically accumulated wind-blown dust. So your looking at a big pile of lotsa little lumps of basalt.
This is why they were stripped out and washed away when the ice dam broke.

Contrast this with the plutonic granite mass at Aswan. Like I said earlier even if you had the same waterflow as at Palouse (and there is no evidence of anything like it) the granite at Aswan would be hugely more resistant to erosion. There was no ice dam upstream of Aswan anyway. The latitude was all wrong for it. You're heading towards the equator there, mate.

We can skip the irrelevant comparison between Palouse and Aswan from now on. Don't bring the English Channel into it either. That was also the result of an ice dam and anyway was carved through limestone, not granite.

So we're back to a relatively small volume of water carving a deep, narrow canyon. That's what it looks like to me at least.

08-05-2007, 04:36 AM

Ok, having thought about it briefly I realised 200 tons couldn't be the total amount of sediment annually and that linked diagram didn't provide any other units. I suspect they forgot to add "x10^6".
Here's some better figures:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:...n&ct=clnk&cd=4

Looks like the peak at Aswan is 6,000ppm and annual load is around 160 million tons.This reminds me of the old shaking glass experiment, Dave. See what the sediment capacity of the Nile in flood is? 6,000ppm, mate.

The Evil One · 08-05-2007, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWE

Right. It's like DNA evidence is to a crime scene.

This is an example of Dave's buggered-up epistemology. He thinks that witnesses are the best sort of evidence and that if you've not got a witness then basically you're restricted to guesswork.

On the other hand, in the real world, consider a crime scene where the only witness says Anthony did it but Bertram's DNA, not Anthony's, is all over the scene. Who will get convicted for this? Bertram, that's who.

Physical evidence trumps human testimony. Dave's belief in the contrary is the sad consequence of indoctrination in a religion which has nothing but (rather shaky) human testimony to support its extraordainary claims and thus is precommitted to the notion that testimony is Good Evidence.

Dave's entire position boils down to the axiom that the physical evidence in the world must be interpreted so as to fit in with the human testimony in his holy book, and not the other way around.

Calilasseia · 08-05-2007, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Evil One

Physical evidence trumps human testimony. Dave's belief in the contrary is the sad consequence of indoctrination in a religion which has nothing but (rather shaky) human testimony to support its extraordainary claims and thus is precommitted to the notion that testimony is Good Evidence.

Ah, but you're forgetting a refinement here that Dave wishes to have us believe applies.

Namely that testimony by people of his ilk with is belief system is 100% reliable and infallible (just like the bible) but testimony by scientists isn't because they're all part of the Great Conspiracy™ to divert us from the Way Of Truth And Righteousness™ and are all agents of Satan. Even if he hasn't openly espoused this, many of us are convinced on the basis of what he has said both here and elsewhere that he certainly believes it, even if he chooses to hide the full extent of his belief in this vein for PR reasons. Until he came under a hail of criticism earlier on in the Leakey thread over this, he accused scientists of conspiring to falsify data (a matter of public record if you check that thread, as is the withering collection of replies he received subsequently) and this would certainly be consistent with the fundamentalist view of science as a tool of Satan that some persons of that ilk have openly espoused.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Evil One

Dave's entire position boils down to the axiom that the physical evidence in the world must be interpreted so as to fit in with the human testimony in his holy book, and not the other way around.

A succinct summary. Indeed, it's even worse than this - Dave somehow harbours the belief that the physical evidence DOES conform to his holy book, and the reason that we can't see this is because we are wilfully rejecting god. Again, a view that is not unique to him, and can be found replicated right across the fundamentalist realm. The aetiology of this particular fixation with doctrine is certainly fascinating to observe, even if dealing with its consequences should it ever achieve the ascendancy that its adherents crave would be a total nightmare for the entire human species, let alone just America.

Dave Hawkins · 08-05-2007, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mung bean

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

What's so hard about all this? Is there some problem I'm not seeing?

No Dave, there's nothing hard about it. Yes Dave, there is a problem you're not seeing.
It's sorta like the ol' elephant in the living room, except in this case instead of having a whacking great pachyderm hiding behind the sofa
we have the Mediterranean Sea hiding somewhere else on the planet.
All de little fishies kaput, Dave. Wasser go somewhere else.

Ok, let's take this in nice, little, bite-sized pieces. We'll deal with the situation around Aswan first. Now as you know the Palouse Canyon is mainly columnar basalt, which as you would expect from its name is already fractured into hexagonal columns. This makes it easier to erode in a large flood. Over at RDF I remember Deadman (try the toads, mate. They're excellent!) mentioning that there are columns of basalt that made it all the way down to the sea. They were just snapped off and carried along.
The Aswan bedrock isn't columnar basalt. It's a bloody great solid block of granite. Even under the same conditions as at Palouse Canyon it will not respond the same way.

The next thing to consider is the cross-sectional shape of the Nile Canyon at Aswan. Have a look at the pic again.

Now as you can clearly see there is a much deeper section eroded out in the centre. How did this happen? If you're going to postulate a massive flash flood wouldn't you expect a fairly broad canyon? The cross-sectional shape at Aswan is completely different to Palouse Canyon. Isn't the fact that the river bed at Aswan is narrow and deep more consistent with slow erosion by a constant but relatively small volume of water? That's what most people would expect.
You know, a stream gradually cutting its way deeper and deeper. Into solid granite. To a depth of around 800 feet. What think you, Dave?

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

As for the infilling with first marine, then freshwater sediment ... I haven't given this a lot of thought yet, but it seems like the marine sediment would have been deposited during the Flood and the freshwater would be post-Flood.

Ok Dave, time to put on our thinking caps, yes?
If your Flud happened (and I freely admit that at this stage I regard it as a load of batshit insane dribbling bollocks) then any surface feature it filled with sediment must be a pre-Flud feature. With me so far?
Righty, now you claim that there's a humungous global layer of Flud sediment up to a couple of miles thick. A deep river canyon would be expected to fill up with said sediment. How come the marine sediment at Aswan is only 400 feet deep, Dave? Why don't it fill teh canyon? Wossup wit dat, me ol' china?

Then we have the freshwater sediment on top. Lotsa mud there, Dave.
How did it get there? You can't claim it was deposited by a catastrophic flood. Why not? Well, coz if there was a humungous volume of water chundering down teh canyon at huge rate of knots it would scour sediment out, not fucking deposit it. IOW, the freshwater sediment must have been deposited by a relatively slow moving body of water over a relatively long period of time.
How much sediment do you reckon the Nile carries, Dave? How long do you think it'd take for 450 feet of it to build up?

PS: Note to any science professionals reading this.
I don't claim to be qualified in any particular field so if you spot any errors please point them out. Thanks.

Good. Bite size pieces. First, regarding the erosion of bedrock. Remember that ALL mainstream geologists were laughing at Harlan Bretz, just like you and your buds here are laughing at me right now. I have not studied the exact differences between the Palouse and the erosion here, but I do know that mainstream geologists have been HORRENDOUSLY wrong about major things in their field in the 20th century. So it's going to take some serious effort on your part to convince me of your long ages story here. You have presented nothing to show that "slow and small" is effective at carving canyons in bedrock. Contrast that with the fact that I have now given you two examples of "huge and fast" being VERY effective at carving canyons. So while the rocks 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 "slow and small" story.

As for the fresh and salt water sediments we find, this will take some study, but my starting premises for study would be ...

1) the canyon was probably formed catastrophically ... two other major ones we know of were ... why not this one?
2) We see only small sediment beds being laid today ... so any large sediments are probably Flood relics ... we should investigate within this framework

Of course, if along the way we see that these premises are totally unreasonable, then we abandon them.

Stephen T-B · 08-05-2007, 11:54 AM

I'm sorry to say, but Dave really does not understand what's going on here.

The Flood, Noah, his Ark and getting all those animals on to it etc etc is an example of the Jewish god's BIG MAGICK.
Turning Lot's wife into a pillar salt was one of its lesser tricks, but stopping the sun's movement across the sky was another of the big ones.

Attempting to make magick fit in with what we know about rhe real world simply doesn't work, leading, as we've seen, to all these risible "explanations" provided by the Creatiionist "scientists."
Anyone who has studied the Fairy Folk knows that trying to explain magick in rational terms is a complete waste of time.
More than that; it is dangerous. It can make people go mad, as we see.

VoxRat · 08-05-2007, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Remember that ALL mainstream geologists were laughing at Harlan Bretz, just like you and your buds here are laughing at me right now.

"Just like"?

I don't think so.

Didn't Bretz have some expertise, some background, in the field he was hypothesizing about? Do you?

Also, remember:

Quote:

The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Sauron · 08-05-2007, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

First, regarding the erosion of bedrock. Remember that ALL mainstream geologists were laughing at Harlan Bretz, just like you and your buds here are laughing at me right now.

Except you are no Harlan Bretz, dave. Bretz was an actual geologist, for starters, unfettered by a religious obligation to prove an ancient text. He started with the evidence, formed a coherent theory that was testable, and kept looking for a mechanism for the Palouse flood. And he knew that had he failed to find the mechanism, he knew that his theory would have crashed.

Bretz was conducting science. You haven't even scratched the surface.

Quote:

I have not studied the exact differences between the Palouse and the erosion here,

Then:

(1) any preconceived notions or firmly held positions you have must be irrational and you should abandon them; and
(2) You should spend some time studying the geology before offering any views, since you admit yourself that you're ignorant of the subject matter.

But we all know you won't do either.

Quote:

but I do know that mainstream geologists have been HORRENDOUSLY wrong about major things in their field in the 20th century.

Oh really? Let's see your list of HORRENDOUSLY wrong things.

More likely, this is just another brave claim that you fabricated on the spot, since you find yourself backed into a corner by the evidence against creationism.

Quote:

Of course, if along the way we see that these premises are totally unreasonable, then we abandon them.

If that were true, you wouldn't even be posting anymore.

Faid · 08-05-2007, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by mung bean

No Dave, there's nothing hard about it. Yes Dave, there is a problem you're not seeing.
It's sorta like the ol' elephant in the living room, except in this case instead of having a whacking great pachyderm hiding behind the sofa
we have the Mediterranean Sea hiding somewhere else on the planet.
All de little fishies kaput, Dave. Wasser go somewhere else.

Ok, let's take this in nice, little, bite-sized pieces. We'll deal with the situation around Aswan first. Now as you know the Palouse Canyon is mainly columnar basalt, which as you would expect from its name is already fractured into hexagonal columns. This makes it easier to erode in a large flood. Over at RDF I remember Deadman (try the toads, mate. They're excellent!) mentioning that there are columns of basalt that made it all the way down to the sea. They were just snapped off and carried along.
The Aswan bedrock isn't columnar basalt. It's a bloody great solid block of granite. Even under the same conditions as at Palouse Canyon it will not respond the same way.

The next thing to consider is the cross-sectional shape of the Nile Canyon at Aswan. Have a look at the pic again.

Now as you can clearly see there is a much deeper section eroded out in the centre. How did this happen? If you're going to postulate a massive flash flood wouldn't you expect a fairly broad canyon? The cross-sectional shape at Aswan is completely different to Palouse Canyon. Isn't the fact that the river bed at Aswan is narrow and deep more consistent with slow erosion by a constant but relatively small volume of water? That's what most people would expect.
You know, a stream gradually cutting its way deeper and deeper. Into solid granite. To a depth of around 800 feet. What think you, Dave?

Ok Dave, time to put on our thinking caps, yes?
If your Flud happened (and I freely admit that at this stage I regard it as a load of batshit insane dribbling bollocks) then any surface feature it filled with sediment must be a pre-Flud feature. With me so far?
Righty, now you claim that there's a humungous global layer of Flud sediment up to a couple of miles thick. A deep river canyon would be expected to fill up with said sediment. How come the marine sediment at Aswan is only 400 feet deep, Dave? Why don't it fill teh canyon? Wossup wit dat, me ol' china?

Then we have the freshwater sediment on top. Lotsa mud there, Dave.
How did it get there? You can't claim it was deposited by a catastrophic flood. Why not? Well, coz if there was a humungous volume of water chundering down teh canyon at huge rate of knots it would scour sediment out, not fucking deposit it. IOW, the freshwater sediment must have been deposited by a relatively slow moving body of water over a relatively long period of time.
How much sediment do you reckon the Nile carries, Dave? How long do you think it'd take for 450 feet of it to build up?

PS: Note to any science professionals reading this.
I don't claim to be qualified in any particular field so if you spot any errors please point them out. Thanks.

Good. Bite size pieces. First, regarding the erosion of bedrock. Remember that ALL mainstream geologists were laughing at Harlan Bretz, just like you and your buds here are laughing at me right now. I have not studied the exact differences between the Palouse and the erosion here, but I do know that mainstream geologists have been HORRENDOUSLY wrong about major things in their field in the 20th century. So it's going to take some serious effort on your part to convince me of your long ages story here. You have presented nothing to show that "slow and small" is effective at carving canyons in bedrock. Contrast that with the fact that I have now given you two examples of "huge and fast" being VERY effective at carving canyons. So while the rocks 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 "slow and small" story.

As for the fresh and salt water sediments we find, this will take some study, but my starting premises for study would be ...

1) the canyon was probably formed catastrophically ... two other major ones we know of were ... why not this one?
2) We see only small sediment beds being laid today ... so any large sediments are probably Flood relics ... we should investigate within this framework

Of course, if along the way we see that these premises are totally unreasonable, then we abandon them.

Sooo... In summary, dave's response to that excellent post by mung beam, was:

"I have no idea what the hell you're talking about there. All I know is that scientists have been wrong about stuff before, therefore they could be wrong about stuff again, therefore they ARE wrong, and your post is baloney".

"Oh also, since two canyons were formed catastrophically, then ALL canyons were formed catastrophically, and any indications that they might have formed gradually are also baloney".

"Oh oh, and since we only see small amounts of sediment been deposited today (a short period of time), then all large amounts of sediment couldn't have been deposited in a long period of time (since the Earth is only 6000 years old), and therefore they were deposited during the Flood, therefore the Earth is only 6000 years old".

Why am I not surprised?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-04-2007, 11:38 PM	#821
BWE Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 624	Truth Molesters. I want credit if it's not already coined. Also: Reality Molesters and Sanity Molesters.

08-05-2007, 01:45 AM	#822
mung bean Guest Posts: n/a	Btw boys n girls, I've just found some figures on Nile sediment. Fuck all, by world standards. Mean annual sediment load is about 200 tons. http://www.utdallas.edu/geosciences/...ile/index.html Now, is anyone up to figuring out how long it would take to plonk down 450 feet of freashwater sediment at Aswan? I'm sorta thinking it'll take a while. We'll just stick to Aswan at the moment methinks. Don't wanna scare the boy off. Speaking of himself; Davey boy, like I said you can't compare Aswan with Palouse Canyon. Not just because the shapes of the canyons aren't comparable but also because of the different types of rock. Now thanks to Cege I was inspired to go back to RDF (oh, the good ol' days of rampant abuse and lenient moderation :angel: ) and look up your "Palouse wictory". Here's good ol' Dead Fucker's (long may he piss down decapitated necks) opinion on Palouse Canyon columnar basalt: http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/...167833#p167833 The relevant part is that at Palouse Canyon not only do we have basalt pre-fractured into smallish hexagonal columns but also the columns are quite short and interspersed with layers of loess, which is basically accumulated wind-blown dust. So your looking at a big pile of lotsa little lumps of basalt. This is why they were stripped out and washed away when the ice dam broke. Contrast this with the plutonic granite mass at Aswan. Like I said earlier even if you had the same waterflow as at Palouse (and there is no evidence of anything like it) the granite at Aswan would be hugely more resistant to erosion. There was no ice dam upstream of Aswan anyway. The latitude was all wrong for it. You're heading towards the equator there, mate. We can skip the irrelevant comparison between Palouse and Aswan from now on. Don't bring the English Channel into it either. That was also the result of an ice dam and anyway was carved through limestone, not granite. So we're back to a relatively small volume of water carving a deep, narrow canyon. That's what it looks like to me at least.

08-05-2007, 04:36 AM	#823
mung bean Guest Posts: n/a	Ok, having thought about it briefly I realised 200 tons couldn't be the total amount of sediment annually and that linked diagram didn't provide any other units. I suspect they forgot to add "x10^6". Here's some better figures: http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:...n&ct=clnk&cd=4 Looks like the peak at Aswan is 6,000ppm and annual load is around 160 million tons.This reminds me of the old shaking glass experiment, Dave. See what the sediment capacity of the Nile in flood is? 6,000ppm, mate.

08-05-2007, 11:54 AM	#827
Stephen T-B Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Leeds, UK Posts: 5,878	I'm sorry to say, but Dave really does not understand what's going on here. The Flood, Noah, his Ark and getting all those animals on to it etc etc is an example of the Jewish god's BIG MAGICK. Turning Lot's wife into a pillar salt was one of its lesser tricks, but stopping the sun's movement across the sky was another of the big ones. Attempting to make magick fit in with what we know about rhe real world simply doesn't work, leading, as we've seen, to all these risible "explanations" provided by the Creatiionist "scientists." Anyone who has studied the Fairy Folk knows that trying to explain magick in rational terms is a complete waste of time. More than that; it is dangerous. It can make people go mad, as we see.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.