Re: how can I curb a crank who believes in Earth expansion pseudo-theory?
- From: "George" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 21:07:50 -0400
"James" <james.maxlow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1175646554.870591.119710@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Apr 3, 1:29 am, "Pascal Boulerie" <Pascal.Boule...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hello,
I need advices to curb a crank who believes in Earth expansion pseudo-
theory.
Grasshopper, you know nothing. May I suggest that before you go
expressing YOUR opinion that you do your homework and actually
quantify your statement by providing factual evidence to disprove EE.
Doing your homework means putting aside YOUR preconceived conclusions
and using correct scientific principals to compare and contrast the
evidence. Contrary to what YOU believe Earth expansion IS in fact a
viable concept. It actually explains ALL global tectonic data
(geological, geophysical, geographical, geochemical) far better than
plate tectonics is capable. How do I know this? Because unlike you I
have spent the past 17 years researching and writing about EE and
contrasting it with PT. If you are serious about knowing more about
Earth expansion then may I suggest that you at least start at:
www.oneoffpublishing.com to find out more, or at least view my
animations at:
http://home.websolutionswa.com/home/jamesm/album/index.html
James
Hey Jimmy. Is this you trying to fit geologic history into the biblical
account of creation?
http://www.uq.net.au/~zztbwalk/TAG.html
GEO-BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY
Dear Editor,
In all fairness we should give credit to Tas Walker (TAG 109, 110) for
enlightening us on our geological misguidance. From his webpage
introduction it would seem that in order for us to gain a fuller
appreciation of the geological sciences we need to dispense with Geology
and study Mechanical Engineering. Instead of wasting our time slogging it
out in our desolate outback inventing geological history we then need to
design and operate power stations in Queensland so as we gain an
appreciation of geo-biblical chronology.
Bearing in mind that SHRIMP isotopic data need to be re-examined in light
of biblical philosophical presumptions to be meaningful, I decided to
integrate our geological chronology into the tried and proven biblical time
frame so as we can all benefit fro this new geo-biblical revelation. The
difficulty in achieving this revelation of course depends on deciding where
to place creation within the geological time frame. I have assumed, for the
purpose of this investigation, that creation occurred at the end of the
Proterozoic when life as we know it commenced. The Archaean and Proterozoic
rocks, representing 4 billion geological years, are therefore considered to
represent rocks generated during the 6 day "creation era". Tas acknowledges
that "plankton and other tiny sea life" may have been created early in this
creation event to account for Precambrian fossils.
In his biblical chronology presented, post-creation eras have been
conveniently subdivided by Tas into "lost-world era, flood event, and
new-world era" rocks, all of which are described in detail in his website.
Now, once again considering the inherent problems we supposedly have with
SHRIMP isotopic age determinations compared with the accuracy of biblical
chronology, a decision must be made to either:
Adopt a linear transformation of geological chronology to biblical
chronology, commencing at the beginning of the Cambrian; or
Adopt an exponential transformation, whereby geological time is distorted
to link the geological data into the more accurate biblical framework.
As can be seen in the left hand graph of the accompanying figure, by
disregarding 90% of geological time, a linear transformation of the SHRIMP
isotopic data fits neatly within the biblical framework shown in the
central graph. I have some reservation with World War I occurring during
the Oligocene and World War II occurring during the Miocene though, and am
also concerned about my Pliocene age. There is no obvious demarcation
between lost-world era and new-world era rocks as one would expect from
such a cataclysmic event, fossiliferous Palaeozoic strata don't really fit
within the flood event, and the dinosaurs should have been mentioned in the
scriptures.
In contrast, the right hand graph, showing an exponential transformation,
appears to be more adaptable, with all of recorded history coinciding with
the Quarternary. There is however some conflict with the biblical model
whereby the Palaeozoic era, in particular the Permo/Carboniferous "flood
related" coal strata, appears to occur too early in the biblical record.
This of course is more than likely a mathematical transformation problem
and will no doubt resolve itself once Tas puts more effort into resolving
this geo-biblical chronological dilemma for us. The graph does however
enable the excessive Precambrian time frame to fit neatly within a 6 day
"creation event" without having to mysteriously lose 90% of time as in the
previous graph. Although it is considered that, as the rest of the Universe
was not created until late in the creation event, there may be some
flexibility with regard to time itself.
Once again, on behalf of all of us mere Geologists I would like to thank
Tas for finding time between power stations to resolve our misguided
geological chronology for us. Next time Tas has time though, he may like to
get out into the real world of rocks once in a while where he will (should,
may) realize that geological history is written in the rocks for all to
see. Geologists are trained specialists able to read this history, we do
not invent history, we apply it. Strange as it may seem the geological time
frame developed by Geologists to cover the entire 4.5 billion year history
of our Earth, since creation, encompasses the biblical history within the
most recent Holocene period, without the need for distortion of time. The
biblical history as recorded in the bible is also quantified exactly with
our dating techniques, so, what is the problem?
James Maxlow, Glen Forrest, WA
__________________________
Editor's comment:
Paul Blake could not imagine how so much geology could be explained by the
short time of Noah's Flood. Such thinking is still constrained by the
uniformitarian slow-and-gradual culture. James Maxlow used completely wrong
transformations and naturally obtained ridiculous results. For a start, he
should have used the rock-scale, not the time-scale as explained in the web
page. I sent off a letter answering all these claims. Again, the letter was
published. But the editor wanted to end the discussion, so obtained
responses from the other writers, thus giving them the final word.
_______________________
So, Max, are you or are you not a "Biblical" Geologist? Did you ever
actually get that PhD degree in Geology you've being trying to get for so
long? I know that the outline of your 'dissertation' is available online.
Are you willing to post a link to the actual full dissertation (including
the data that was presented), or was it never accepted?
George
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: how can I curb a crank who believes in Earth expansion pseudo-theory?
- Next by Date: Re: how can I curb a crank who believes in Earth expansion pseudo-theory?
- Previous by thread: Re: how can I curb a crank who believes in Earth expansion pseudo-theory?
- Next by thread: Re: how can I curb a crank who believes in Earth expansion pseudo-theory?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
