Carboniferous coal measures contain no flowering plants or grasses

[Patashu]

Because I have the honesty to admit I don't know. So called science has the unmitigated gall to make stuff up.

If you don't know then why does your argument rely upon it being true?

 

[thaumaturgy]

How many of these papers did you read, I mean in the time it took you to reply I would have struggled to read one.

Again just hand waving, it does not impress anyone, except perhaps indoctrinated creationists.

Read the papers, not just the Abstracts

Note what Dad did in many of the cases. He highlighted the conditional and "hedge" words. "Likely", "Probably" etc.

It seems like a random walk through looking for anything that allows "doubt". This of course is what is considered, in most circles, scientific honesty, but Dad takes it as so weakening to the debate that he is willing to throw the data out.

I'm not sure where any science is that is 100% absolute because to my knowledge science doesn't deal in that (that's religion). So I don't actually know what Dad would consider evidence.

But further he certainly has a right to ask what connection 13-C ratios have to ice and other materials, but again that is a very detailed bit of information that I don't even recall and I had a semester of stable isotope geochemistry (it was about 20 years ago or so). But the point being that the sheer volume of intensely detailed information that is incumbent on these articles is something that should give people like Dad pause to realize:

People know a LOT about this stuff that Dad can't even hope to understand from a brief read-through of a few posted articles.

Yet Dad thinks that pointing out where the author uses phrases like "likely" or "probably" is a valid criticism?

Gimme a break. This is some intense stuff. Some really complex material. When you get down to the level of stable isotopic signatures there's a lot of really neat and wholly understood and supported modern-day science that explains why rocks carry the stable isotopes that they do.

As an example, Dad, you can actually find evidence for RAINSHADOWS in rocks by looking at the stable oxygen isotopes that are preserved in the rocks (carbonates and some clays). Here's an article about this.

Here's a quote from another:

The general observation of decreasing δ18O and δ2H values in rainfall as elevation increases has been used in both empirical and theoretical approaches to estimate paleoelevation. These studies rely on the preservation of ancient surface water compositions in authigenic minerals to reconstruct the elevation at the time the minerals were forming. In this review we provide a theory behind the application of stable isotope-based approaches to paleoaltimetry.(SOURCE)

This is absolutely amazing information to realize we have at our disposal! We know how oxygen and hydrogen fractionate in rain on different sides of mountains and at different elevations! We can measure it today. We can see it reflected in ancient rocks.

Dad will, of course, revert to the "unseen past" model and tell us we know nothing about how isotopes fractionated "back then", but it's all beside the point. This is the best data we have. Unless dad can actively show why this data is so doubtful that it cannot yield useful information it is the best we have.

Of course I highly suspect that Dad doesn't undestand one single word of this area. It's hard stuff. The science behind the fractionation, the math behind it, is not simple straightforward GED stuff. Many people spend their careers working out these fractionations.

And people like Dad, armchair critics, who couldn't do anything like this themselves, even in the effort to find a valid criticism of the underlying science, will still level accusations and doubt against it.

If Dad was disciplined enough he'd take on the science and not just the "hedge words".

But we know how Dad's argument works. Years of experience have shown that.

 

[dad]

How many of these papers did you read, I mean in the time it took you to reply I would have struggled to read one.

Again just hand waving, it does not impress anyone, except perhaps indoctrinated creationists.

Read the papers, not just the Abstracts

If you propose the papers prove that there was ice in the Carboniferous, it is up to you to concisely show how. Personally, I don't know, maybe there was some poles even in that different past, before the breakup of continents. But you appear incapable of making a clean clear case. How impressive is that?? It almost sounds like 'I don't really know what I am talking about, and can't explain it, just read these big papers somewhere, they seem to be official'

 

[Patashu]

If you propose the papers prove that there was ice in the Carboniferous, it is up to you to concisely show how.

Um, no it's not. The PAPERS provide evidence for it. If you think their conclusions are wrong it's YOUR job to provide evidence against, point out problems or flaws in their methodology or data, et cetera

 

[dad]

But further he certainly has a right to ask what connection 13-C ratios have to ice and other materials, but again that is a very detailed bit of information that I don't even recall and I had a semester of stable isotope geochemistry (it was about 20 years ago or so). But the point being that the sheer volume of intensely detailed information that is incumbent on these articles is something that should give people like Dad pause to realize:

Quality is more important than volume. One can take a scoop of doo doo, or shovel a truck load, but it is still what it is.

People know a LOT about this stuff that Dad can't even hope to understand from a brief read-through of a few posted articles.

They think they know, you believe them. They do not know about the past, only the present, to any impressive degree.

Gimme a break. This is some intense stuff. Some really complex material. When you get down to the level of stable isotopic signatures there's a lot of really neat and wholly understood and supported modern-day science that explains why rocks carry the stable isotopes that they do.

But you can't say why. So what, cheerleading in now all you can do in a debate??

As an example, Dad, you can actually find evidence for RAINSHADOWS in rocks by looking at the stable oxygen isotopes that are preserved in the rocks (carbonates and some clays). Here's an article about this.

from that..

" Topographic development of the southern Washington Cascade Range and its influence on regional climate on the leeward side of the range for the past 15.6 m.y. are evaluated, using oxygen isotope ratios (

18O) of ancient meteoric water recorded in authigenic smectites."

Well, now, why was the water from a meteor? It forgot to say?? What about the isotopes gives the age in this case, precisely? What are the assumptions of how the mountains got there? What evidence do they have that the wind blew the same direction for over 15 million imaginary years? Etc. Fairy tales.

This is absolutely amazing information to realize we have at our disposal! We know how oxygen and hydrogen fractionate in rain on different sides of mountains and at different elevations! We can measure it today. We can see it reflected in ancient rocks.

Dad will, of course, revert to the "unseen past" model and tell us we know nothing about how isotopes fractionated "back then", but it's all beside the point. This is the best data we have. Unless dad can actively show why this data is so doubtful that it cannot yield useful information it is the best we have.

Ha!!! here is a bit of YOUR quote.
"These studies rely on the preservation of ancient surface water compositions in authigenic minerals to reconstruct the elevation at the time the minerals were forming"

A mountain of assumptions. We need to know about the natural state of ancient water, before we figure out how it changed. We need to be sure it was surface water. And, then, you better show us step by step in the "reconstructing" exercise!!!

The science behind the fractionation, the math behind it, is not simple straightforward GED stuff. Many people spend their careers working out these fractionations.

"Fractionation is a separation process in which a certain quantity of a mixture (solid, liquid, solute or suspension) is divided up in a large number of smaller quantities (fractions) in which the composition changes according to a gradient. Fractions are collected based on differences in a specific property of the individual components.A common trait in fractionations is the need to find an optimum between the amount of fractions collected and the desired purity in each fraction."
Better tell us about the specifics, and not just say, 'oh it is so complicated..' -Baloney.

If Dad was disciplined enough he'd take on the science and not just the "hedge words".

If you were disciplined enough you'd show us the science, that needed taking on!

 

[dad]

Um, no it's not. The PAPERS provide evidence for it. If you think their conclusions are wrong it's YOUR job to provide evidence against, point out problems or flaws in their methodology or data, et cetera

It is up to anyone offering those conclusions to say what they are, and how they got there!!! Otherwise, you offer nothing.

 

[Patashu]

It is up to anyone offering those conclusions to say what they are, and how they got there!!! Otherwise, you offer nothing.

But they already are offering something; the papers!

 

[Patashu]

You're saying that these papers rely upon assumptions, but that doesn't make them wrong. If you think they are, prove those assumptions wrong. If you can't, or if you can't even propose a method by which these assumptions could be tested and shown wrong, you have no case.

 

[dad]

The Late Carboniferous Glaciation

After the Silurian flooding event in Arabia and the subsequent deposition of a sequence dominated by fluvial and marine sandstones,

Talk about that. Tell us why it could not have been anything but ice. (as opposed to pre flood flooding, or etc)

the plate was affected by a series of uplift events culminating in the Carboniferous-aged Hercynian event.

So, tell us about this. How do we know that this uplift, for example was not part of the rapid continental move?? There is enough there to chew on for you. No need to look at the rest of your big claims yet, untill you do.

Baby steps. Let's see if you know what you are talking about, or just like to hear yourself talk!!

 

[dad]

You're saying that these papers rely upon assumptions, but that doesn't make them wrong. If you think they are, prove those assumptions wrong. If you can't, or if you can't even propose a method by which these assumptions could be tested and shown wrong, you have no case.

Hey, so far all I saw linked was a rattling bunch of story telling, not supporting itself on the way at all. That is for believers, not honest folk. Roll up the sleeves, and get dirty, if you want to defend that tale. I'll slug it out every step of the way, and you can be sure, 'it will not pass!'

 

[thaumaturgy]

from that..
Well, now, why was the water from a meteor? It forgot to say??

You're joking right now, aren't you? You do know what "meteoritic water" is don't you?

That's what scientists call RAINWATER. Sheesh. You don't even understand the common language of the field yet you want to critique it????

Please. I'm laughing too hard right now.

(Mind you, I don't mind that you don't know what specific scientific terms are, but you are just so nasty about it, what with comparing this field to feces as you did, and then you put your foot so firmly in your mouth on this one that it reminds me of the adage that "pride cometh before a fall". It fits so well!)

What about the isotopes gives the age in this case, precisely?

Hey, Einstein, we're talking stable isotopes here. This has nothing to do with age dating.

Again, you're making me laugh too hard.

Your ignorance is amazing to behold. No offense, I wouldn't expect you to know this stuff, but your snarky nasty comments in criticism of the science make your ignorance upon which they are based kind of sad but kind of funny.

What are the assumptions of how the mountains got there?

Doesn't matter to the point I was making. If you understood the point you'd see that has nothing to do with it.

If you were disciplined enough you'd show us the science, that needed taking on!

I did, you didn't understand even the common terms the field used. You were wrong. You're not as smart on this subject as you'd like to bully people into thinking.

Too bad you stepped directly into it and didn't think anyone could call you on it!

Ha!

Learn the following then come back to the table:

Meteoritic water
Stable Isotope Geochemistry

 

[Naraoia]

It is clear there were many many differences in the past. (Most of them made up!)

That's pure gold.

 

[Naraoia]

It almost sounds like 'I don't really know what I am talking about, and can't explain it, just read these big papers somewhere, they seem to be official'

Are you saying that to a geologist?

 

[Naraoia]

from that..

" Topographic development of the southern Washington Cascade Range and its influence on regional climate on the leeward side of the range for the past 15.6 m.y. are evaluated, using oxygen isotope ratios (

18O) of ancient meteoric water recorded in authigenic smectites."

Well, now, why was the water from a meteor? It forgot to say??

meteoric (of or pertaining to atmospheric phenomena, especially weather and weather conditions) "meteorological factors"; "meteorological chart"; "meteoric (or meteorological) phenomena"

(from HERE)

Because we all know that meteorology is about meteors.

EDIT: Crap, Thaumaturgy beat me.

 

[dad]

You're joking right now, aren't you? You do know what "meteoritic water" is don't you?

That's what scientists call RAINWATER. Sheesh. You don't even understand the common language of the field yet you want to critique it????

Please. I'm laughing too hard right now.

You do realize that all water was said to have come from meteors at one time??? That means rainwater as well.
"
Over a billion years, at least hundreds of millions of comets collided with Earth, Delsemme says. The bombardment would have been especially heavy just after Earth formed.
Attributing water on Earth to these latecomer comets neatly explains a couple of things: first, how water that originated at the outer edges of the solar system got to at least one of its inner planets, and second, how water arrived late enough in Earth's formation for the planet to have sufficient gravity to retain it.
"The front-runner [hypothesis] until about 5 years ago was that water came from comets and came in late," says Kevin Righter, a planetary geochemist at the University of Arizona in Tucson. "One group of measurements changed that."



(I am laughing so hard right now)




Those measurements were spectral analyses of the chemical compositions of three comets--Halley, Hyakutake, and Hale-Bopp--during near-Earth passes they made in 1986, 1996, and 1997, respectively. These analyses, the first that examined the hydrogen in water on bodies from a remote region, revealed a crucial chemical difference between the hydrogen in cometary ice and that in Earth's water.
Most hydrogen atoms possess a nucleus made up of a sole proton. Rarer forms also contain a neutron or two. The one-proton--one-neutron version, called deuterium, behaves chemically like hydrogen and can form water and other compounds. However, the resulting molecules are distinctly heavier than those containing the more common form, or isotope, of hydrogen.
Deuterium is exceedingly rare on Earth. Barely one such isotope exists for every 7,000 atoms of standard hydrogen. In contrast, the deuterium-to-hydrogen ratios in the three comets, according to the new observations, were all twice that in Earth's water.
The discovery gave researchers some pause. Assuming that the compositions of Halley, Hyakutake, and Hale-Bopp are representative of all comets, explaining how a hail of the objects could produce oceans with an earthly deuterium-to-hydrogen ratio is like trying to make a low-fat dessert from heavy cream.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_12_161/ai_84546023

What a scream.

(Mind you, I don't mind that you don't know what specific scientific terms are, but you are just so nasty about it, what with comparing this field to feces as you did, and then you put your foot so firmly in your mouth on this one that it reminds me of the adage that "pride cometh before a fall". It fits so well!)

The claims as a whole are precisely of that quality and fragrance.

Hey, Einstein, we're talking stable isotopes here. This has nothing to do with age dating.

Again, you're making me laugh too hard.

Your ignorance is amazing to behold. No offense, I wouldn't expect you to know this stuff, but your snarky nasty comments in criticism of the science make your ignorance upon which they are based kind of sad but kind of funny.

Great, Sherlock, so, what about stable isotopes means the mountains are the many millions of years old etc as claimed??? [Show us how the dates are derived!!!] I understand that you might like to make intimate familiarity with the silly terms of so called science the measure of all reality, and correctness, but no, that is not even close to how it works. What is important is the content of the claim, and it's basis, and what is being said. Aside from laughable terms, you don't seem to have much of a handle on it, as demonstrated so far, at least.

Learn the following then come back to the table:

Meteoritic water
Stable Isotope Geochemistry

Learn the following, stop claiming that rainwater shows mountains are millions of years old is you can't explain how.

 

[dad]

(from HERE)

Because we all know that meteorology is about meteors.

EDIT: Crap, Thaumaturgy beat me.

Well, that is funny to have thought they referred to meteors bring the water. I can have a good laugh at that as well.
In this case, it is rainwater, so I await someone to show us how that is a good proof for the claims.

 

[dad]

Are you saying that to a geologist?

To anyone that makes false claims, and can't support them.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Well, that is funny to have thought they referred to meteors bring the water. I can have a good laugh at that as well.
In this case, it is rainwater, so I await someone to show us how that is a good proof for the claims.

Dad, you said this:

Quality is more important than volume. One can take a scoop of doo doo, or shovel a truck load, but it is still what it is.

You compared a field you demonstrably don't even start to understand to feces.

And then you think your comments hold any sort of meaning???

Look, no one begrudges you the fact that you are not an isotope geochemist. Not one person. But what we do hold against you is when you compare it to feces in one sentence and then say things that indicate you don't even start to understand what you are calling feces.

I don't get it.

I don't know what kind of things you learned from the Bible but you seemed to have missed some really important ones, including but not limited to:

[bible]Proverbs 11:2[/bible]

 

[thaumaturgy]

You do realize that all water was said to have come from meteors at one time??? That means rainwater as well.

That wasn't what was meant here. If you knew the field you previously compared to "doo doo" you'd understand. Meteoritic water is a general term geologists use to describe rain.

Early water on the planet may have had sources in meteorites (more is likely from condensates from cooling magmas, another technical term called "juvenile water") But again, that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. You can't just drag people off into your doubt-cave.

We were talking about meteoritic water as rain water in the article sited which you yourself then quoted here:

" Topographic development of the southern Washington Cascade Range and its influence on regional climate on the leeward side of the range for the past 15.6 m.y. are evaluated, using oxygen isotope ratios (

18O) of ancient meteoric water recorded in authigenic smectites."

So the blatant fact that you didn't know what you were talking about but now try to make it sound like you did disgusts me.

The claims as a whole are precisely of that quality and fragrance.

You stand accused of making fun of something you demonstrably didn't understand. You were wrong. Admit it.

I assume there must be some honesty in your debate skills somewhere. Maybe?

Great, Sherlock, so, what about stable isotopes means the mountains are the many millions of years old

Jeez Dad. Did you not understand: we weren't talking about age. Stable isotopes tell you chemical composition and chemical source, they are not age determining isotopes. You were told this in POST 431.

Again, you are talking way out of school on this one. You clearly see the word "isotope" and fail to understand that not all isotopes are radioactive or are for telling ages.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE AGE OF ANYTHING.

It is merely showing you how stable isotopes can show you where some materials come from or how they can be used to better understand the provenance or conditions at the time.

Learn the following, stop claiming that rainwater shows mountains are millions of years old is you can't explain how.

I did not claim rainwater showed mountains to be millions of years old. You have been told HERE that this was not an age issue.

Dad, I'm under no illusions that you are a serious person in a serious quest for knowledge. I don't think many are under that impression. But if you are going to call someone's area feces, you better understand it.

I doubt you actually care what your supposed lord and savior said when he said:

[bible]Luke 6:31[/bible]

 

[Naraoia]

To anyone that makes false claims, and can't support them.

I imagine you must be talking to yourself all the time